o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 SanFrancisco 讨论区 】
发信人: MeiMeiCA (MeiMeiCA), 信区: SanFrancisco
标 题: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 13 12:54:01 2014, 美东)
何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
By: Mei Mei Huff.
While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last
census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in
the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was
only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the
Senate Democrats truly had 2/3rd of the Senate votes in place.
But under supermajority rule, unless you are among the groups that receive
preferential treatment, you are what Mr. Woo describes as "non-persons."
What did the Democrats do with their 2/3 supermajority in January? They
passed SCA-5. And under SCA5, Asians are non-persons. Under supermajority
rule, Democrats can pass constitutional amendments like SCA-5, they can
raise taxes, confirm or deny the Governor’s appointments and override the
Governor's vetoes.
All Republican bills were not “dead on arrival” as postulated by Mr. Woo,
but the meager numbers did force Republican legislators to be smarter, re-
evaluate themselves and to build alliances.
How can a Party lose that badly, he asked? It was one vote at a time, one
district at a time, and it was a 40-year slide. But to say that “None of
them (Republicans) can be too politically astute", is not only demeaning,
but misses the bigger picture of representative government. California is
unlike any other state in the nation. Each Senator represents a district
with 931,000 people, give or take a percentage either way. To put that in
perspective, each Senate District in California contains more people than
the state of Delaware. All 12 Republican senators made their case to, were
elected by, and have the confidence of the majority of voters in their
respective districts. This is a cumulative representation by Republicans of
12 million people—larger than most states, but still a superminority in
California.
Mr. Woo’s comment that Republicans were inspired by the effectiveness of
the Chinese-American community in opposing SCA5 misses the point. The
question should be, where was the Asian opposition the previous two times
Senator Hernandez introduced the same racial preference language over the
past five years? Republicans were there voting consistently against the ill-
conceived measures, while the Democrats, including Asian Democrats, voted
for them. SCA5 was not a creation of the Republican Party and it was also
not the Republican Party that taught Senator Ted Lieu or Assemblyman Al
Muratsuchi a lesson. So I fail to see how the Republican Party is to blame
for diving a wedge between the Latinos/Blacks and Asians. Republican
opposition to SCA5 has been consistent through the years, reflecting
principled lawmakers voting for their core beliefs of personal
responsibility and limited government. The dinner table has been set by the
Democrats the same way, three different times in the past five years. This
time Asians woke up and realized they were the main course.
Not only was there never an effort to create or drive a wedge issue, there
is not one now, and my husband and I find that offensive. The 29th Senate
District that my husband represents is comprised of 27% Asian residents, or
254,000 in round numbers. He works hard to represent all of his constituents.
Even though my husband is the Senate Republican Leader, he is not the type
of person looking around for wedge issues. He looks at issues in his
community as well as the state, and tries to address those issues in a way
that makes sense. When Chinese after-school programs were being shut down by
the Democrat-controlled state government as illegal childcare, Senator Huff
fought the battle for about five years, but finally got legislation passed
that made these after-school programs legal.
When school “District of Choice” legislation was about to sunset, my
husband carried successful legislation to extend the program because it gave
parents more control over which schools they could enroll their children,
to get a better education. Senator Hernandez (author of SCA5) fought and
voted against this program because it was perceived that most students who
wanted to leave a school in his district were Asian, and when Asian students
left the districts they lived in for districts they preferred, they left
their home school districts with lower school scores. This is likely why
Senator Hernandez wrote SCA-5 to apply to all public education, and not just
Colleges and Universities.
As for SJR-23 related to the state apologizing for historic discrimination
against the Chinese, and calling on Congress to do the same, the timing is
coincidental with nothing to do with SCA-5. My husband had been working last
fall with some Chinese who had concerns that our Federal and state
governments expressed regrets about this historic discrimination against
Chinese, but they haven't apologized as they have for other minorities. The
bi-partisan, multi-racial LA County Board of Supervisors led the way by
signing a letter asking the Federal Government for an apology.
So, in January, some time before the January 30th floor vote on SCA5,
Senator Huff asked Senator Leland Yee to jointly author SJR23, to show bi-
partisan and bi-racial support from the state legislature seeking an apology
. SJR23’s introduction was delayed for a bit because Senator Huff wanted
the furor over Senator Yee’s subsequent vote for SCA-5 to die down. Senator
Yee was then arrested in an FBI undercover operation, so Senator Yee’s
name was stricken from the bill.
Let’s not get too wrapped up in the thought of political gamesmanship, as
the author is implying. Let me restate that there are no political games
being played here. SCA-5 was bad for our community and bad for the state,
and SJR-23 is good for the state to understand and express apology for past
behavior. Ironically, in perspective, SCA-5 is just a 21st century version
of previous and historic discriminations against the Asian community.
Let's not forget that when the vote for SCA5 ran over the Republicans in the
Senate, then into the block wall of Chinese/Asian grassroots opposition,
that the Speaker of the Assembly sent it back to the Senate without a vote.
It was then that the Latino and Black Caucuses issued a statement that they
still support the principles of SCA5. It was also the Latino and Black
Caucuses who pulled their endorsement of Senator Ted Lieu for Congress as
punishment for withdrawing his support of SCA-5, and then punished
Muratsuchi by killing his bill on the assembly floor, after supporting it in
committee.
The Governor, the Speaker, The President pro Tem of the Senate, and the
Latino and Black Caucuses have all reaffirmed their support of the
principles framed in SCA5.
Our struggle is far from over. If we can't successfully beat the Democrat's
super-majority in at least one of the houses in this year’s elections, we
will see it come back to haunt not only Asians, but all Californians who
strive for a level playing field and excellence in our educational system. | g********d
发帖数: 19244 | 2
in
【在 o**********e 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 SanFrancisco 讨论区 】
: 发信人: MeiMeiCA (MeiMeiCA), 信区: SanFrancisco
: 标 题: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 13 12:54:01 2014, 美东)
: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
: A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
: By: Mei Mei Huff.
: While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
: absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
: both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
|
|
