STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE 2015 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

1

VICTORIA MARQUEZ, VA

I sat down on Tuesday night expecting something new from President Obama's 6th State of the Union Address, a visionary plan to move our country forward in the direction that the people had demanded in the November elections. Instead, from the first minutes onward I was greeted not with a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation, but a President declaring to veto Congressional legislation, impose immigration reforms with the force of executive orders, and patronize Congress on causing gridlock. President Obama proposed a new plan for financing community college, a tax plan

2

championing "Middle-Class economics," and several other reforms. A gifted speaker, the President weaved an intricate picture of flourishing America.

Looking towards the future, the President stated "Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different." Our President's dream is far from our current reality. The speech given was reminiscent of his past 5 State of the Union Addresses. However, for the first time in his presidential career, our President Obama is facing a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. The speech, although filled with hopeful sound bites, was not

3

founded on realistic compromises, but charismatic rhetoric. He stated "In two weeks, I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan." The past and current factual evidence does not sustain this statement. Although he spoke of ending partisan gridlock, the budget he has sent to Congress is a continuation of his previously polarizing policies. This indifference towards his audience and his present political reality blatantly proves that President Obama has forgotten the cornerstone of leadership: to be a leader, one must have followers.

Responses continue on P2

IN THIS ISSUE: 2 | Upcoming Events in the Mid-Atlantic State 3 | Opinion Articles

The Winter Congress 2015 Issue of THE MID-ATLANTIC STATE

TIDE

7 | The Mid-Atlantic State Tide Bullseye

2 THE MID-ATLANTIC STATE TIDE

UPCOMING EVENTS IN THE MAS

Bergen County Academies Chapter Conference: “Reaching Societal Heights: Achieving a Better Tomorrow” March 1 Rutgers Preparatory School War-Con March 7 Freehold Township International-Con March 14

STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE 2015 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

1

AKASH GARG, NJ On Tuesday the 20th of January, President Obama delivered the 2015 State of the Union Address. For the first time in his presidency the speech was delivered to a Congress completely controlled by the opposite party, the Republicans. This speech outlined his vision, for the nation. In his speech President Obama outlined his policies and made an effort using statistics to prove that his 6 years were a success, stressing, for example, how 11 million jobs were created under his presidency, and trying to prove it was not what the opposition regards as a failure. President Obama also discussed in his speech what he calls “middle class economics.” This policy includes proposals to mandate paid maternity leave, paid sick leave, and a higher minimum wage. Additionally, President Obama mentioned his proposal to make Community College education free. He also brought up climate change and his ideas to fix it and proposed ideas to cut carbon pollution. He gave a veto threat when discussing Iran, stating that any attempt to raise sanctions will be vetoed. Some to the more bipartisan proposals he brought up were personalization of medicine and military operations against ISIS. In all, Obama gave a great speech with his vision for the country. However, this speech was controversial as President did not suggest how he will work with the new congress on his ideas.

2

This speech was extremely controversial because he was speaking with a Republican Congress who disagrees with majority of president’s proposals. President Obama did not anywhere in his speech, signal compromise and in fact give veto threats, which certainly does not show parties working together. Out of the proposals presented by President Obama, one that that New Jersey lawmakers specifically liked was the proposal to make community college education free. Several New Jersey congressmen, including Bill Pascrell of the 9th district, specifically pointed to it as a proposal that will come as a benefit to New Jersey, saying "I applaud the president for making this commitment to our workforce and our students and pledge that I will fight in Congress to help make this plan a reality." New Jersey already has in place the STARS program, which is a scholarship program, eligible for the top 15% of the class at every high school, which provides free community college to people in New Jersey. Many lawmakers see the community college plan as a way to expand upon the STARS program, for President Obama’s proposal is available to all, as well as a way to receive funding for it from the federal government. Additionally, New Jersey’s 19 community colleges are seeing lower enrollment rates, and thus Obama’s community college proposal counteracts that. However, many New Jersey

3

lawmakers are concerned over cost. The current STARS program is selective because of limited funding, so the question is will President Obama provide enough funding to really expand the program. Republican Chris Smith of the 4th district shared such concerns over cost, on how much it will cost the federal government, and will such cost be sufficient to help the states. Lawmakers from New Jersey are expecting to get more details of the community college proposal brought up in the State of the Union Address.

Joni Ernst gave the GOP response this year to the State of the Union address. Her speech was much more personal than Obama’s, and it was more directed at the American people than at Obama’s speech. Ernst brought up many proposals in her speech, mainly the keystone jobs bill, lifting trade barriers, and simplification of the U.S tax code. However, instead of being forceful and outlining a vision like Obama did, she emphasized compromise. At every bill she stressed bipartisanship and democrats and republicans working together. Ernst tried to prove that the policies in place for the last 6 years were not working, and that the republican congress would fix that. She spoke a lot about towns like Red Oak, and how values she learned in Red Oak are important and are how a county should be led. She related the republican proposals to her own core values of hard work and self-reliance . To address America, she made the speech very personal, and aimed to tell that the new republican congress is better.

Responses Continued on P3

3 3

1

DAISY GRAY, NC

As expected, President Obama’s State of the Union address was poised, clear, and well-articulated. He covered a variety of topics, ranging from social issues to national security, explaining his views and the policies he strove to excogitate in his remaining two years. Everything he hit upon managed to have relevance to the amalgamation of constituency groups that comprises the American population, as he covered many hot-button issues that have attracted considerable media attention. Inevitably, discussing contentious issues yields dispute and controversy; while Obama did a commendable job avoiding a tendentious approach to the issues, there were a few things he addressed that sparked my attention. That he emphasized the difficulty of living – let alone supporting a family – on minimum wage was imperative, and a sincere effort to ensure the equal opportunity guaranteed to all. However, while a living wage is undoubtedly paramount, it was interesting that he overlooked the potential economic implications of raising the current minimum – including but not limited to increased unemployment, reduced training, and fewer non-wage benefits. A wage that can effectively support a family is long-overdue; however, I only hope that a new policy will ensure other harms do not arise as a result. Moreover, his proposal to guarantee free and accessible higher education to all has already begun to experience some backlash. Creating a policy at the federal level that concerns primarily state

2

institutions is precarious, especially in such an acrimonious political climate and involving shouldering such high costs; however, in the long-run, it’s sure to be beneficial. Education is one of the first rungs on the ladder to success. Income and race disparities have long been exacerbated by gentrification of schools and a harsh cycle of poverty that cannot be broken with the exorbitant tuition figures students face today. The impact is sure to be twofold; first, the accessibility to a higher education will be a step in the right direction towards parity, seeking to bridge the socioeconomic dichotomy that only seems to be widening, through directly enrolling more students who would have otherwise forgone college. Furthermore, it will be fascinating to see the long-run effects of this materialize, as free education will also entice higher-income families as well. By potentially creating more economic and race stratification in community and vocational schools, the more subtle “separate but equal” phenomenon that has persisted long after Brown could begin to dissipate. Obama’s proposals concerning domestic parity are dynamic and provocative, but contain hope for a brighter future.

More dauntingly, Obama pragmatically addressed the growing threat of ISIS/ISIL, announcing his plans to curtail their advance through a medley of American military power and foreign coalitions. His proposed policy has the potential to be problematic in a few ways; however, considering the situation, it appears to be the best tool for confronting a non-state aggressor.

3

American military intervention has been empirically proven to increase anti-American sentiment; as such, it would be short-sighted to send in troops to attempt to confront ISIS as it could potentially only exacerbate the issue. Yet Obama’s plan involving foreign coalitions appear promising; hopefully we have learned from past mistakes and will be able to utilize a force that will be effective without concurrently propagating Western hegemony. What appeared more problematic to me was his statement that currently, US troops are supporting a moderate opposition in Syria to assist them with their effort to defeat ISIS. In a volatile region like Syria where it would be detrimental to support either the Assad regime or ISIS, sometimes the only option that remains is to support an opposition force; however, I only hope it doesn’t set a precedent that could lead to future rebel uprisings in the region.

These are only a few of the many issues Obama discussed; just as these points have their respective benefits and drawbacks, so too do many other issues policy makers face today. Overall, it seems, the future of Obama’s term is promising – we are taking steps towards parity domestically, and learning from our previous foreign policy blunders. If the political divide can be bridged and members of both the left and the right collaborate to ensure legislation that protects the interests of the people, I remain hopeful for the future of the country. •

INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE Aman Shah

1

A national debate has plagued the entire country; a debate whose resolution will affect the lives of millions of people now and in the future. The country has to make a decision on whether or not to help minimum wage workers. Many are disgruntled about the idea of raising the minimum wage and their two most frequented remarks are: an increase in the minimum wage will prove more detrimental than beneficial and the population that survives off of the minimum wage is much smaller than that of those trying to earn a little extra spending money. The truth to the matter is the average minimum wage worker is 35 and working full time. More than 25% of minimum wage workers have children they need to feed. With the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour

2

that seems utterly impossible. The last minimum wage increase was in 2009; it raised the minimum wage to $7.25 from $6.55. While this increase may be somewhat recent, it must be duly noted that the country has seen an increase in inflation. As inflation increases the spending power of the dollar declines, which means people are less capable of supporting themselves. In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60 per hour and accounting for inflation that is equivalent to $10.72 today. To help those trying to make a living, the country cannot allow increases in minimum wage to fall behind inflation. A decline in the “real” value of the minimum wage is capable of slowing economic growth and making the lives of millions of Americans that much harder to endure.

Continued on P4

4 THE MID-ATLANTIC STATE TIDE

1

THE NEED FOR CIVIC EDUCATION George Iskander

If you have ever heard people arguing, you may have heard the line “It’s a free country!” thrown around as justification for a statement. Of course, one cannot say anything and still be protected under the freedom of speech. There is the famous example, Schenck v. United States Supreme Court Case, which ruled that one cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Many do not understand the complexity of the Constitution or the fact that some of the Constitution can be very ambiguous. Nevertheless, one may wonder, how well do people know the Constitution and government?

Recent statistics have provided an answer: many Americans do not know how the federal government is organized. The Annenberg Public Policy Center conducted a survey of adults, and of them, only 36% were able to name the three branches of U.S. government. In addition to the surprisingly low levels of civic knowledge, voter participation has been decreasing for the past few decades. November of 2014 had a voter turnout of 36.3%, the lowest voter turnout of a midterm election in 72 years. Adding to that, the phenomenon of the civic education gap has been responsible for lower quality civic education among minorities and the working class. Political activism and awareness have reached a nadir in modern America. What has happened?

In the 1960s and 1970s, schools had more diverse curricula, encompassing civics, art, and social studies. Since then, schools have been pushed to place more focus on reading and math classes. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, 71% of schools have cut programs and classes to increase class time for reading and math. The decreasing importance of civics education in American classrooms has been responsible for low levels of political activism and awareness. Being an active and informed citizen is a tall order. It requires knowledge of different candidates, political issues, terminology, and a worldly perspective. If the requisite skills are not developed during one’s education, then navigating the world of politics can certainly prove to be challenging and time consuming, perhaps

2

explaining the recent trends of low voter turnout. That is not to say that civics education is absent from high schools around the country. Many states require students to take a social studies class to graduate. However, many states are moving away from essays and projects to multiple choice question tests. Civics classes are moving from a hands-on approach to a test based one. Hands-on instruction has been generally found to be more effective and educational in the classroom.

Arguably, much can be improved, but questions of restructuring civics and teaching have been the subjects of debate. Teaching students about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence may seem a good place to start, but many U.S. history classes teach students about these two founding documents. A civics class cannot simply cover the material of a history class; it must also justify its existence by covering additional material.

Perhaps an even better civics class might additionally cover current events and issues, such as what Senators and Representatives stand for and party platforms. This structure still has a problem with the topic of bias. It is not unreasonable to think a teacher might introduce some sort of bias into his or her instruction. After all, politics is a sensitive subject and for many people, political beliefs can sometimes reflect deep personal convictions. Such instruction might teach students incorrect information. In the classroom, students should be taught information free of bias in order to form their own educated opinions. Additionally, the problem with engaging students in becoming active citizens still remains.

Another approach, according to Professor Sara Ryan of Baruch College, includes implementing “debate-centered pedagogy.” Debate not only engages students, but encourages quick thinking and the belief that they can change the world around them. If the civic education gap is to be closed, working class and minority students must develop the belief that they have the capacity to make their voice heard.

INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE

(Continued from P3) The minimum wage has been a major issue, dominating the minds of economists in the United States. From over two decades of research, it is blatantly apparent that a modest increase in the minimum wage will have little to no negative impact on jobs of those already working. Given all the facts it is baffling that even when leading economists such as Lisa Lynch, dean of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, send a joint resolution to leaders in Washington supporting the Fair Minimum Wage Act (an act that would increase minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016), it still has not been pushed through. With a modest increase to the federal minimum wage, everyone stands to benefit. An increase in the spending power of a large group of people will not only bolster the economy, but also people will be able to lead better lives where they can comfortably support themselves and their families. Furthermore, with decades of research behind numerous economists, it is safe to say negative impacts generated by an increase in the minimum wage will be non-existent. The minimum wage needs to be increased, and doing so will help, not hurt, the average American. •

3

Debate helps hone and develop the necessary rhetoric and logic. However, such a class cannot exclusively rely on debate. While the issue of teacher bias carries serious consequences, students nonetheless should learn about their current representation. Teachers can assign research projects to realize this and foster political research.

Many activists and educational reformers have pushed for new, mandatory classes in schools for years: Computer science, Spanish, sex education, and even NRA classes in South Carolina. Almost every proposed mandatory class has its merits, but few are necessary and important to students in the long-run. Civics education numbers among these classes. Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” People who do not understand political rhetoric are easily convinced and manipulated. Civics education provides the gateway to a more informed and educated public. •

5 5

1

VOUS POURRIEZ ETRE CHARLIE, MAIS JE NE SUIS PAS.

Daniel Gu

It is usually said that only in times of great tragedy are we able to look beyond and past our differences to unite and act in solidarity. It is only when a great, common enemy – that is, fear – arises that we can set aside our differences to point out the bad guy. After September 11, 2001, it was not only Americans that stood up for those that fallen, but all of humanity that united against the idea of terror. It is only in such great national tragedy that someone can be driven to declare a war on terror, an idea, an abstract idea given a physical construct.

But I digress.

Nearly fourteen years following the attacks in America, there arose another – this time in France. However, whereas the previous attacks were with the purpose of “humbling” an otherwise prideful nation, this time, it was an act of revenge.

The general story, if you haven’t heard already, is that two masked gunmen broke into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo and killed eleven, injuring eleven others. Al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch claimed responsibility, touting their successful vengeance upon the tyrannical organization, France showed resilience, defending freedom of speech and touting Charlie as their martyr, and the rest of the world sent their condolences.

2

The first hearing may prompt you to stand up in unison with the rest, shouting "Je suis Charlie!" in defiance of those who dare oppress our right to say whatever, and to offend whomever. It's not our fault that someone's feelings got hurt over a little bit of satire and ended up resorting to violence and outright killing the very people that upset them, and we should enforce that fact.

And, for the most part, that is true. Freedom is speech is freedom of speech, and we are allowed to say whatever we like (with the natural limitations that we should all have in mind), regardless of who we offend. In no way, shape, or form should violence be used, whether it be spreading the idea or retaliating against it. It's the only reason that organizations like the KKK were allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest (despite the disgusting and vehemently racist messages they preached), but were immediately taken hold of when they resorted to violence. As the famous Voltaire was misquoted to have once said (and journalists everywhere after quoted), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Yes, we can be mean with our words. Yes, we can be hateful, or loving with our words. But there shall never be an instance where that right is taken from us, whether through death, or otherwise.

But, that’s beside the point. We all agree that freedom of speech, regardless of how offensive, should be protected and preserved as a means to communicate

3

and express our ideas. The issue with Charlie Hebdo, however, is not the why they were attacked, but rather, Charlie Hebdo themselves. The satirical newspaper is nothing more than a publication of mockeries and obscenities, with a level of complexity easily equated to the humor of the Internet troll. The messages and acts of sacrilege made by the cartoons came with the same weight as the racist ideals spread by the KKK. An image of Muhammad (not even in mockery) was to Islam as uttering the name of God was to Judaism. It was all that you held dear and cherished, your life’s work and purpose, suddenly cast into the spotlight and lampooned.

The killing of the staff of Charlie Hebdo was not warranted. Murder is abhorrent, and violence should never be resorted to. We should defend to the death our right to say what we want. But we should not and cannot tout Charlie Hebdo, the publisher of obscenity equitable to that of the KKK, as our savior, our beacon of free speech against all those that stand against us. To hail Charlie Hebdo as our martyr for free speech is to hail the peaceful demonstrations of the KKK as the same. To hail Charlie Hebdo as the pinnacle of satire is to hail Spongebob as good humor.

Vous pourriez être Charlie, mais je ne suis pas. •

GERRYMANDERING AND VOTING Ethan Zang

1

In the 2012 election, Democratic candidates received over 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives than Republicans. However, Republicans won control of the house, by a margin of 234 seats to 201. Such misrepresentation of the views of the people is the direct repercussion of widespread gerrymandering across the United States.

Gerrymandering is the process of reconstructing congressional districts in order to represent the political views of the citizens in a more favorable manor. In general, Republicans live in broadly dispersed, rural areas, and Democrats gather in more urban regions, and so the party facilitating the districting adheres to these trends in order to win more congressional seats. Ideally, the opposing party’s supporters are packed into the same districts that would be won regardless, such to ensure that these voters do not contribute to closer races in other districts. Geographically, these districts end up having absurd borders

2

with no apparent pattern aside from political clustering. Following each national census, the majority party in the state legislative districts redraws the boundaries, thus this last occurred in 2010.

In a democratic system where we wish to most accurately represent the views of the population, it is appalling that gerrymandering can have such a drastic impact on elections. In 2012, Democrats won the majority of the popular vote in Ohio, 52 percent in fact, but Democrats only won four out of the sixteen seats. In that same year, Democrats in Pennsylvania also won 52 percent of the popular vote, but lost 13-5 in House delegations; the same goes for Michigan, 54 percent majority for the Democrats, but a 9-5 deficit when it came to House seats.

Continued on P6

6 THE MID-ATLANTIC STATE TIDE

3

GERRYMANDERING AND VOTING Continued from P5

The driving forces behind gerrymandering are self-interested politicians who make up state legislatures. The most sensible reform to combat gerrymandering would thus be to take gerrymandering out of the hands of politicians entirely, and let nonpartisan commissions redraw district lines. This method has seen success in many countries, such as Canada, where a shift to these independent coalitions in the 1960s gave away to uncontroversial, geometrically simple congressional regions. Only then can America eradicate the skewing of voter demographics that is gerrymandering, and better embody the political views of its citizens. •

1

THE GROWTH OF POLICE MILITARIZATION

Vishesh Sharma With the recent events in Ferguson, the nation has brought its attention to the state of the police. No longer are we living in a nation which puts emphasis on the safety and privacy of the individual. Rather, we are seeing law enforcement agencies abuse power with increasing access to military grade technology and weaponry. Grenade launchers, machine guns, and tanks are being used by on us by the same people who are supposed to protect us. The reason we fight wars against enemies in other nations is to ensure that it never

2

reaches us; clearly that is not happening. Our states are giving excess weaponry from the military to our local police stations in an event of an “emergency.” And it is evident by recent events, that these stations are just waiting to use these technologies. For years, the United States of America has championed itself on being the pinnacle of democracy and not oppressing its people. But as seen in many cases of false drug raids, and Ferguson, this does not hold true. In one case for example, the local police station was tipped off that a house was harboring marijuana. In response, the station geared up and headed to the

3

house. The first thing they did was smash open the door and throw in a flashbang. That flashbang landed in a baby’s crib. And now that baby is going through intense surgery for recovery. To top it all off, there were no drugs found, and it was all a joke. Tragedies like these can no longer be justified under the pretense of defense. We have had the defenses and safeguards for crises for years; there is no point of equipping local forces with military weaponry for civilian protection. We are heading on a very dangerous path, and we must change our course while we can. •

A BAND-AID ON A GAPING WOUND: IMMIGRATION REFORM Tilak Bhatnagar

1

The American immigration system is broken. Approximately 11 million undocumented individuals live inside our borders - many of whom are exploited by the business elite, as undocumented workers cannot appeal to the government to defend them or even their basic human rights for fear of deportation. Illegal immigration denigrate those whom have gone to the trouble of procuring proper documentation and waiting in line - many would say this should be what is expected to begin with, not something to be seen as taking much trouble. President Obama recently authorized an executive order to provide some relief for the current situation. This executive order, according to whitehouse.gov, carries three critical elements: 1) cracking down on further illegal immigration at the border; 2) deporting felons, not families; 3) accountability (in the form of criminal background checks and taxes). The notion driving President Obama when making this legislation was noble: it was attempting to do right by those whom have been ensnared in the complications of modern bureaucracy.In addition to the above three critical elements, this order also shall offer a legal reprieve to undocumented parents of legal citizens whom have resided in the country for at least five years. Now, a majority of the population need face a constant threat of deportation, and can safely seek employment. Employment also divides many on this issue - it is a frequently claimed that illegal immigrants threaten our jobs and job security. Many illegal immigrants once here are limited to low-skill, labor-intensive jobs; and so although they do not displace middle-class workers, as a whole they displace Americans previously employed in low-skill jobs. A small benefit can be claimed for the overall economy - lower wages paid to illegal aliens yield to lower prices

2

for consumers which increases consumer spending. Yet this contribution disproportionately affects low-skill workers, giving them ground for their anger, and pointing to the deeper issue to be resolved at hand. The issue at hand has been neglected for decades; Congress has failed to pass comprehensive legislation to address the situation at hand. The 113th Congress of 2014 was in fact the least productive Congress session ever. In this context, President Obama opted for unilateral executive action to at least provide a temporary stop gap. This executive action is not without precedent; President George H. W. Bush previously authorized a similar order in 1990 which provided amnesty to 1.5 million spouses and children. 4 other Republican Presidents have passed executive orders: Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and George W. Bush. However, even Obama’s executive order has unleashed a firestorm in Washington DC along partisan lines, with many Republicans deeming it unconstitutional, threatening a government shutdown, and even impeachment, such as Rep. Steve King (R-IO) when he stated: “The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me.” Still yet, now a dilemma has compounded the issue - this order shall be implemented under the budget of the Department of Homeland Defense, and now Republicans are faced with potentially defunding the department, in protest of the order. The hopes and dreams of millions are at hand, not just of Americans, but of citizens elsewhere. We shall have to wait and see what the helping hand we offer to them shall hold. •

7 7