A common trend I've noticed amongst my friends is a great deal of indifference to the upcoming gubernatorial election. This is understandable.
While the president possesses the ability to send Americans to die in a quagmire thousands of miles away, many people believe that the governor makes little or no difference to them.
What impact does the governor have on the average person?
Being a college student, what a governor is going to do about tuition is a matter of some importance to me, and to many other students at the College.
Jon Corzine, the democratic candidate plans to create 1,000 new scholarships for outstanding scholars, providing 10,000 additional tuition assistance grants, providing tuition assistance to the children of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and providing tax credits to students who go to college out-of-state but return to work in New Jersey.
As a member of the Senate, Corzine also voted to increase tax deductions for college tuition.
In contrast, Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate, plans to "to make certain that university faculty and staff understand the needs of New Jersey's corporate community and are implementing curriculum to address those needs."
I suppose that's all well and good, if not very innovative, but it doesn't really do anything to make higher education more affordable for citizens of New Jersey, or attempt to stop the exodus of students from New Jersey seeking higher education.
The governor, of course, affects other aspects of life in New Jersey besides college education. He also controls everything from taxes to the state's protection of the environment.
The difference between the two candidates, on all of these issues, could not be more apparent.
Corzine wants to create a fund that can be used to encourage alternate energy research, place greater restrictions on air pollutants and combat urban sprawl. As a member of the Senate, Corzine has a consistent record of supporting the environment, earning approval from organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters.
He has been a consistent advocate of greater restrictions on mercury pollution, which has been repeatedly shown to be a threat to wildlife and humans.
Forrester, in contrast, has said he believes that taxpayer money should be used to clean up sites that were polluted by petrochemical companies.
Currently, a special tax is levied on petrochemical companies to pay for the clean up of such sites, but evidently Forrester believes that it is the responsibility of the average Americans to pay to clean up pollution caused by oil companies.
In fact, Forrester has repeatedly shown how little he cares about the environment.
After receiving thousands of dollars from energy companies when running for a seat in the Senate in 2002, Forrester came out as the only candidate in the Republican primary to support relaxing environmental regulations for power plants.That alone should speak volumes about where Forrester's true interests lie.
I could go on listing the reasons why Corzine is a better candidate, but I think it's clear.
One candidate has shown a consistent policy of trying to improve the quality of life for the people of New Jersey. The other thinks that New Jerseyans should pay to clean up the messes of corporations. Which one do you want?
Information from - corzineforgovernor.com, doug.com, issues2000.org, starledger.com, query.nictusa.com
