Mid-Year Cuts Prompt Action for Mayor’s June Budget Proposal
As San Francisco’s June budget proposal for the 2008-09 fiscal year looms ahead, advocates of public services must come together and assert our voices, demanding that the services, which benefit the most marginalized populations of the city, not be cut. The Mayor’s office projects a $300 million deficit, and, at this point, the budget lies in Newsom’s control.
As the City moves forward to shut down shelters and eliminate mental health services, we must intervene and demand that our supervisors stand up to the war being waged against those of us whose very existence depends on the services the Mayor wants to eradicate.
If the Mayor’s 2007-08 budget is any indication of what lies ahead, then the city can anticipate cuts and the elimination of programs that serve populations in need such as the homeless community, low-income families, people living with HIV/AIDS, low-income seniors, people caught in the justice system, and immigrants.
The 2007/2008 budget was a tragedy for homeless people and public services in San Francisco. The City has already imposed several mid-year cuts intended to ease the projected $300 million deficit.
Tragically, the cuts prompted the closure of Buster’s Place, which was the only drop-in center where a person experiencing homelessness could go twenty-four hours a day to find a chair to sleep in, a shower, or a bathroom to use. It was a safe place for people who needed to escape the crime and turbulence of the streets. In doing this, Newsom displaced individuals who may have no other alternative but the cold and violent streets.
Nicholas Olczak, from the Fog City Journal said, “The cuts can be seen as part of a broader move by Newsom to get rid of what he calls ‘the silo system’ of homeless support.”
The Mayor’s attempt to dismantle the previous system and redesign the structure of the emergency housing system leaves the most at-risk individuals neglected and with nowhere to go.
In addition to impacting homeless people, San Francisco must prepare to battle the cuts to healthcare services. The Health Commission will hold future hearings regarding programs scheduled for cuts. Proposed public health cuts will potentially reduce services offered to mentally ill clients, and in-home assistance to victims of gunshots. Moreover, the proposed budget will cut all funding to health initiatives in Bayview/Hunter’s Point, and close a wing of the Laguna Honda Hospital. The Mayor’s Health Commission approved a cut of 22% to funding for non-profits and community health programs.
Newsom’s “Healthy San Francisco” program promotes universal healthcare, yet the programs he intends to cut serve the uninsured population of the city that he publicly asserts to be his number one priority. The underlying intention of the Mayor must be questioned—he claims to support healthcare for all in public forums. In his recent January inauguration speech, he claimed, “And in the next four years—we will not be afraid to lead on the most important issues facing our city, starting with the most important—health… We will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to quality, affordable, comprehensive healthcare.” In response to the impending cuts, he says that the City is left with no choice. Though he creates the illusion of helping, the reality of his budget priorities shows his allegiance lies with the elite.
The Governor’s proposed budget cuts to state programs for at-risk populations are similar to Newsom’s plan for San Francisco. Yet, San Francisco’s deficit is not a consequence of dropping revenue, but exorbitant spending. Chris Daly stated, “Newsom’s reelection campaign was fully engaged during last year’s budget process, and the Mayor had numerous early supporters to reward. Most notably, the Police Officers’ Association received a four-year contract worth an additional $80 million: This translates to a 25% pay raise for police officers. The Newsom campaign also trumpeted numerous new initiatives with a $40 million price tag attached.”
Each year, in response to the Mayor’s proposed budget, the San Francisco People’s Budget Coalition publishes a Statement of Needs, which combats the proposed budget by exposing the veiled plans to terminate services. The People’s Budget illustrates how the services could be financed and thus saved by taxing rich citizens and wealthy corporations. Last year’s People’s Budget stated that it serves to, “ensure an open and transparent budget process—a process that benefits San Francisco’s most vulnerable populations.”
The People’s Budget further asserts, “Without strong intervention and protection, everyday people are at the mercy of market forces and an economy that is structured to benefit the highly educated and well to do and leaves working, everyday people out in the cold.”
The public must make a call to action on a local level, but the Governor’s heartless cuts cannot be ignored either. One of the factors contributing to the impending local cuts is the State budget, which will eliminate $41.1 million in funding for San Francisco. The Governor plans to reduce payments to Medi-Cal doctors and permanently cut programs that offer services he deems as “optional” such as glasses, hearing aids, speech therapy, and psychology.
In conjunction with fighting cuts at the City level, we must encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to consider additional revenue sources. For example, reinstating the vehicle license fee could bring the State five billion dollars in revenue each year. Schwarzenegger could also lessen the budget deficit by eliminating tax loopholes such as the one that allows people who own yachts to avoid paying taxes if they keep their yachts out of the state for 90 days.
As the deadline for the 2008-09 budget quickly approaches, we must be proactive in calling and writing letters to our supervisors demanding the maintenance of public services. For, if the City succeeds in eliminating services in the same manner seen occurring on a State and Federal level, Newsom will ensure that next year, officials will not have to deal with protests pertaining to the dismantling of public services: such programs will no longer be available to cut.
MeganMercurio