SFWPC's May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election Endorsements

Tthe first thing I imagine couples' therapists will tell you is that you need to learn how to compromise. I don't really know, thought: my idea of therapy is skewed, much like my legal expertise, by the Law & Order franchise. How this applies to the May 19th Special Election? Two things: 1) Our beloved state of California is in a pickle with something like a $40 billion budget gap, and 2) Ain't no one happy 'bout it. So, begrudgingly, the Dems and the Repubs birthed a series of ballot propositions aimed at closing that gap by "shuffling some of the funds around" with predictable cuts to human services. Unfortunately money does not grow on trees. We all wish it did.

Three typical responses to the props: 1) YES to all; we need to solve the damn problem; how's this for compromise? Dems aren't happy with the terms, but yes, that is quite possibly the best we can do under these circumstances; 2) NO to all; we will not accept cuts to vital services; go back to Sacramento and rework the deal to somehow find money for the budget gap elsewhere; and 3) YES to some; NO to others, because 1D & 1E provide a negligible slice of pie, but impact the lives of many severely.

The San Francisco Women's Political Committee, which I am on as a Board Member, recently went through a round of membership votes on the endorsements and this is what we propose:

Check out the full text of our reasons for supporting and opposing, brought to you by the immensely eloquent Frances Hsieh, our Endorsement Chair.