Fighting For New York's Future

Judith Perez has a round face, a skinny smile, and black hair that falls just above her eyes. A Mexican immigrant, she now works the 7 a.m. shift as a waitress at the New York Luncheonette on East 50th Street. The morning of November 7, 2007 gave her an empty restaurant, except for two men sitting by the window. She slid them eggs over easy. The gaunt black man rested his head on his chin pressing his finger to his temple and listening to the man across him speak over the clap of shutters outside the window. Aides would later say the two men discussed the economy, education, and national security and while then this seemed like a VP offer, this meeting between then-Senator Barack Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg demonstrates a relationship. With the election of Barack Obama and the potential third term for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, it is likely that these two men will shape the future of New York City. At this point, it is uncertain what that will look like since the two have such differing approaches to urban policy.

A long-time haven for auto-repair shops, Willets Point has recently been approved for a massive redevelopment project by the New York City Council. Referring to Willets Points' wide potholes and collage of discarded car parts smattering the streets, Mayor Bloomberg called it "a euphemism for urban blight." In 2007, he and his administration announced a plan which would include "exciting new retail and entertainment amenities...a new, high-quality hotel...[and] New York City’s first non-Manhattan convention center," among other upscale facilities. The controversy, however, arises from the intended use of eminent domain which would evict businesses from their property and replace it with facilities which have no immediate relevance to their lives. Some have agreed to sell their land to the city while others resist. Either way, the city's plan gives them only the daunting prospect of restarting businesses in this turbulent economic environment.

Mayor Bloomberg approaches urban problems from the free market perspective. Since the 1970s, federal involvement at the municipal level has gradually decreased. Funding and programs that once aided cities during the New Deal and the Great Society have slowly diminished, forcing cities to come up with creative ways to stay viable. Governmental aid in municipal budgets fell from 26 percent to roughly seven percent. Cities developed a free market approach that teamed public capital with private investment, meaning private enterprise would attract business to feed revenue back into the city. Both Mayor Bloomberg's Willets Point project and previous Columbia University expansion in Harlem transfer land from urban poor to wealthier private investors for redevelopment. Although such projects often claim to benefit everyone, they end up displacing poorer populations with wealthier groups, thereby benefiting the latter at the expense of the former. Willets Point's new retail amenities will serve those corporate employees visiting for an expo at the convention center, leaving the roughly 1,700 people who once depended on the land to find a new locale. 

While Mayor Bloomberg's approach attempts to cover up the problem, President-Elect Obama plans to renew the federal government's commitment to cities, a move which could make free market approaches irrelevant in the coming decade. On the official transition period website, change.gov, Obama outlines a comprehensive urban policy that uses federal power to provide a leg up to cities and their residents. The first and second points on the list are, "Create a White House Office on Urban Policy" and "Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)." Previous administrations tried to aid cities and non-cities using the same policies, but it has become painfully obvious that solutions for suburbs aren't necessarily solutions for cities. President Obama will be able to help cities and non-cities with policies tailored to their specific needs. The CDBG, as the website points out, "is an important program that provides housing and creates jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income people and places." 

The meeting on November 7 between Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Obama indicates no alliance. There will be, however,  a new commitment from the Obama administration to American cities. His policies differ from Mayor Bloomberg's, offering government assistance rather than relying solely on private enterprise. Since Pres. Obama will give money and Mayor Bloomberg is willing to take it, it is far more likely that the former's urban agenda will prevail, ushering an era of federal commitment to the welfare of New York City.

Differing Education Policies Between Senators McCain and Obama

Each candidate is quick to remind us that education is key to our future prosperity, but they offer differing fundamental ideologies on the issue. Senator McCain's education plan incorporates free market principals to foster competition between schools, to reward the best and eliminate the worst. Senator Obama's plan would use the federal government to expand educational opportunities and raise every school to a higher standard. Where Senator McCain brings choice, Senator Obama brings right.

"School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education," said Senator McCain at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Later, defending vouchers, he argued, "Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority schoolchildren are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: test scores and performance are up." Senator McCain supports the voucher program because it lets parents determine their child's education rather than relying on public schools. Vouchers are given out by school districts to allow families the option to spend their tax money that would've been spent on public school to pay for private school tuition instead. This would create a competitive environment between schools, giving each the incentive to be the best.

From the public education's perspective, Senator McCain's support of NCLB, Centers for Excellence, and vouchers would create "sink or swim" education. This ideology, however great for business, is disastrous for schools. Good schools will prosper and attract students, poorer schools won't turn students away. Because of employment opportunities, many low income families have limited mobility. The students who will be left are those who have nowhere else to go, stuck to flounder in terrible schools. These children's families can't move to other school districts, even if their local school is incompetent. If they did get a voucher, there would be nowhere to redeem it. Senator McCain would force families to choose between their child's education and putting bread on the table—no family should have to make that choice. Every school needs to swim because those that sink won't just sink into obscurity, but will perpetuate bad education. Public schools were originally intended to create informed citizens of the republic, which is essential to democracy. The voucher system and increased competition that Senator McCain proposes would leave many students behind and create an even more uninformed public.

Senator McCain's program proposals for compulsory education are sparse, but his plans for higher education are nearly non-existent. For the most part, higher education in the United States is a private endeavor. Senator McCain's earlier education proposals limit government involvement to promote business. In the same vein, he proposes to simplify tax benefits, simplify federal financial aid, make more information available, fix student lending programs, and of course, cut earmarks. Each of these proposals may streamline the process, but in reality, they do little to help struggling families send their children to college.

In stark contrast, Senator Obama wants an overall increase in federal involvement. "No Child Left Behind left the money behind!" has become a slogan on the campaign trail. While Senator McCain would create one Early Head Start Center for Excellence per state, Senator Obama would quadruple the budget for the program across the board. His massive increases in funding and the creation of many programs demonstrates his belief that education is a right and no one should be deprived of it. His website reads, "Quality public education is the heart of the American promise."

The arguments against Senator Obama's plan fall into three main categories, but can be easily summed up in one conservative slogan, "Big Government Bad." Opponents often argue that first, bureaucracy is ineffective. Second, government doesn't work. And third, free market is better.

Senator Obama plans to create at least six new programs, not to mention expanding some that already exist. This would establish an even more massive bureaucracy than exists today. Bureaucracies are slow, ineffective, and waste taxpayers' money. In a time when our economy is so damaged, we can't afford more wanton spending.

Even if the bureaucracy succeeded, it would still be centered at the federal level and completely detached from the realities on the ground. Education is a highly localized practice because the knowledge students garner needs to reflect the values, needs, and practices of their locality. You don't need to learn Eskimo poetry in Flint, Michigan. You need trades.

Any resolution of these problems would be temporary. Big government is slow to react to sudden needs. Free market is better equipped to regulate education. It can penalize poorly performing schools and teachers, and reward high performance. In a "sink or swim" system, there is more incentive than exists in a welfare state.

Countering Senator McCain's higher education plan, Senator Obama would offer a $4,000 dollar tax credit, a welcome relief for struggling families, but possibly ineffective in the long term. Given the state of the economy, universities are cutting costs and relying more on revenue from tuition. It's not a stretch to imagine tuition rising to a cost that dwarfs the small $4,000 aid.

At times, this election has seemed like a contest of impacts—what will lead us to our ruin first—without any resolution. Education, as any other issue, has a profound effect on the future of our society. Both candidates present their beliefs on how best to solve the problem, but each plan, depending on how you argue, has flaws. It's entirely possible that they're both right, and November 4 will usher in a new dawn of humanity. But it's equally possible that neither can wholly fix our education system, regardless of who wins.