San Francisco Budget Wars 2009

(This is the first installment of a series of posts on the San Francisco City Budget and campaigns to challenge cuts to vital human services and layoffs of workers. I’m writing this aware that many of my good friends closely involved with these issues have sharply different opinions. Hopefully, this series with spur serious strategic debate. I’m always open to being proven wrong.)

Late into the evening of July 1st, the Budget Committee of the San Francisco Board Of Supervisors approved a budget that restored about $44 million dollars of cuts proposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom. The deal prevented the outsourcing of City jobs to private contractors and preserved hundreds of vital life-saving services. Immediately, some started to question whether or not the victory was worth the paper it was printed upon. Supervisor Chris Daly, in a near twenty-minute monologue, pointed out that without mechanism to hold the Mayor accountable, many of the funds could simply be held back.

Were Wednesday’s results an organizing victory, or simply a feel-good moment for progressive Supes unwilling to use their majority on the board to secure a deal with teeth? The truth of the matter is firmly located in a grey-area of real politics, and does not fit neatly into any neat explanation of “victory” nor “sell-out.”

The budget, if implemented by the Mayor, is indeed historic in these economic times. Applying Naomi Klein’s concept of the “Shock Doctrine” to local concerns, the economic collapse is a perfect opportunity for those in ideologically attached to a small role for local government to eviscerate city jobs (such as security jobs at museums) and replace them with lower-paying and non-unionized positions. Likewise, low-income working-class people depend on a variety of services saved through the deal. The restoration of eviction defense services, HIV and gang-intervention work, and mental health programs aren’t simply part of a “safety net” or an “entitlement” but rather a part of a “social wage”— based in needs held by most low-income workers yet unreachable by most through high costs. The critique of the deal has much traction.

The Mayor is allowed to simply not spend budget allocations, and given the horrendous situation the State is in, another fight over mid-year reductions is only weeks away. But before condemning Budget and Finance Committee Chair  John Avalos as foolish, one needs to keep a piece of reality in mind: his allies on the Board have six votes, not a veto proof eight. In a sense, what we saw on June 1st 2009 was largely determined by the outcome of the November 2008 election. Had one less progressive Supervisor been elected, Newsom’s budget would have stood largely untouched. Yet in absence of two extra votes, compromise would be inevitable. A compromise it was—leaving many of Newsom’s questionable priorities (such as increased PR staff and a homeless court) unscathed.

Mainstream and most progressive news sources ignored was that the Mayor and the Board Of Supervisors were only two forces in the overall budget debate. Labor and Community organizations, such as the Coalition to Save Public Health and the Budget Justice Coalition had waged a spirited fight back against the cuts since December of 2009. In the final weeks before the deal, Direct Action to Stop the Cuts had led several daring actions against the Mayor, highlighting the impact of the cuts to the public health system and people living with HIV.

Next Fragile Coalitions: Labor and Community Come Together for a Just Budget.