Freedom Socialist Party: Open Letter on the June 8, 2010 California Primary Election

Socialism.com:

Dear Friend:

San Francisco hotel workers, California students and Greek workers are all fighting to protect hard-earned gains—whether wages, pensions or public services—from the budget-slashing, corporate monster that currently stalks the planet. Unfortunately, the June 8th primary election ballot is part of this profit-driven drive to consolidate power and prop up stock market prices. There is not much good news for workers on the state ballot, except for socialist candidates running for governor and a relatively weak proposition for public campaign financing.

The ballot is littered with statewide measures which, if passed, will further limit your access to candidates outside the Democratic and Republican parties, put more of your money into the pockets of private energy companies and the insurance industry, and burden recession-wracked S.F. homeowners with yet another tax increase instead of taxing business profits to fund schools. Outraged workers deserve much better than this!
The local measures are not much better, mostly more “blame the worker!” However, there are two propositions worth supporting in San Francisco – please see below for more information.
Cast your vote for an anti-capitalist candidate in the governor’s race

There are two socialist candidates for governor, both running on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket: Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party (SP) and Carlos Alvarez of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). Both candidates are clearly anti-capitalist and call for the defense of immigrants, full funding for public services by taxing corporations, queer marriage rights, the repeal of California’s racist three strikes law, and an end to all U.S. wars.

However, each party has serious flaws and longstanding tendencies that hamper attempts to strengthen the socialist movement through unity in action. The PSL exhibits a sectarian refusal to work with other socialist groups which is a product of their Stalinist leanings. They also often conciliate to reformists, most recently by siding with L.A.’s mayor and a liberal coalition to keep radical immigrant rights advocates off the speakers’ platform at the giant May 1, 2010 immigrant rights march. On the other hand, the SP will work with other socialists and espouses a socialist and feminist program, as does their candidate Stewart Alexander, but have a terrible track record as far as the quality of their presidential candidates. The party opposes democratic centralism and hence their representatives are not accountable to the SP program. Although we urge you to vote socialist as a protest against the whole rotten capitalist system, we cannot recommend one of these candidates over the other for these reasons. You’ll have to decide.

We also recommend voting for the uncontested Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide and local offices—these candidates will appear on the general election ballot in November. Please see our positions on state and local ballot propositions below.

We hope you find this analysis useful as you prepare to go to the polls. If you are looking for a way to fight for a system that cherishes humanity, knowledge, solidarity, shared abundance and the natural world, then drop by our hall to talk or volunteer, and consider attending our upcoming National Convention, July 9-12 at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Just give me a call at 415-864-1278, email [email protected] or visit http://www.socialism.com.

In solidarity,

Toni Mendicino
San Francisco Branch Organizer
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 14: Claims to increase voters’ right to participate in primaries – Vote NO

State Proposition 14 would allow voters to choose any candidate from any party in the primary. But don’t be fooled by the words “open primary.” The top two vote-getters, even if from the same party, would be the only choice at the general election. Independent and minor party candidates would be eliminated from the general elections. Primaries are an expensive tax-payer-funded method for the major parties to select their candidates. Our solution: a multi-party system without primaries, where candidates are determined in party conventions and all appear on the general ballot. Along with the Peace and Freedom Party and the California School Employees’ Association, we urge you to vote NO on the shrinking of alternatives to the twin parties of capitalism!

Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act – Vote YES

State Proposition 15 repeals the ban on public funding of campaigns. It also creates a two-season pilot program designed to limit spending and private contributions for Secretary of State candidates. Qualifying contenders would receive grants funded by small donations and fees assessed to lobbyists. The pilot program is not mandatory, and is seriously flawed because it places a proportionately heavier qualifying burden on minor parties. But Prop 15 clears the way for future public funding programs. A better option is 100% publicly-funded campaigns to get rid of our current system of millionaire Tweedle Dum versus millionaire Tweedle Dee. We recommend a YES vote, along with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the California Nurses Association, as a first step to getting Big Money out of campaigns.

Proposition 16: Requires two-thirds voter approval for public electricity – Vote NO

State Proposition 16 would require 2/3 voter approval for the use of public funds to start or expand community-owned electricity services in a new area. In California, public utilities are governed through locally elected boards and vie with private corporations to provide power. Investor-owned utilities already have 68% of the state’s electricity business and this measure is their attempt to expand their market and profits by handicapping public providers. All utilities should be publicly owned under worker control! Stop this corporate resource raid! We join with countless California municipalities and the California District Council of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in urging a NO vote.

Proposition 17: Allows insurance companies to raise rates of uninsured drivers – Vote NO

State Proposition 17 would allow auto insurers to raise rates on drivers who let their coverage lapse. Funded primarily by Mercury Insurance, this measure is presented as a reward to responsible drivers. In fact it is a rate hike that discriminates against the disadvantaged or those who don’t drive for a period for any number of reasons, such as taking public transportation, loss of a job, attending college, etc. We agree with various consumer advocacy groups and the California Labor Federation in recommending a NO vote on this CA Chamber of Commerce-supported measure!
SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSITIONS

Proposition A: School Facilities “Special Tax” – Vote NO

This measure would renew a “special tax” on SF homeowners, originally introduced as Prop. B in 1990, of up to $32.20 per year, for 20 more years, “to improve earthquake and fire safety and implement critical capital maintenance of its schools and facilities.” Our children’s safety and education are a top working class priority – as evidenced by the thousands of people who took to the streets on March 4 in defense of quality public education – but this tax will not help our students! The Chronicle reported in 2001 that fraudulent spending began immediately after Prop. B passed 20 years ago. Plus, this is not the only extra fee tacked on to already-high SF property taxes. That money means more to the average worker than it does to the rich folks and business owners living here, yet everyone pays the same – the definition of a regressive tax. Instead, imagine if we levied a special fee on Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two of the City’s richest residents, of just 1% of their net worth: it would bring in $220 million! Next up – hometown anti-heroes the Bechtel Family, then the Gettys. Problems solved! We recommend a NO vote on Prop. A, and hope that the SF Labor Council agrees, but at the time of this letter, SFLC had not yet taken a position.

Proposition B: S.F. Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond – Vote NO

Proponents of this measure want to issue over $412 million in general obligation bonds to improve fire, earthquake and emergency response. We disagree both because it is a general obligation bond – debt incurred by the city for supposedly critical projects that working people pay back many times over – and because it is unlikely to do anything to ensure greater safety for the people of San Francisco. Prop. B says that the money could be spent on a number of as yet undetermined projects. The most likely to see completion would be new firehouses and a brand new home for many of the police operations now housed at seismically unsafe 850 Bryant. New digs for the cops is hardly a priority for most of us who need jobs, better schools and more out of this “world-class city.” Moreover, predominantly Black and Latino inmates, plus judges, jurors and visitors would continue to use 850 Bryant, a potential deathtrap in the event of an earthquake. We urge a NO vote!

Proposition D: Retirement Benefit Costs – Vote NO

Prop. D contains a new formula for determining – and lowering – retirement benefits for all new City employees; requires higher pension contributions from newly hired safety employees; and would place any savings from this charter amendment into the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund; all of which would reduce SF’s massive pension costs. In theory it is good to raise safety workers’ contributions since they receive higher pensions, but they and other SF City workers are not to blame for the local government’s dire financial straits. While the local media sound the alarm that public employee pensions are bankrupting SF, the city’s pension fund actually makes money some years. When it is flush, the city does not pay one dime! Placing the savings gained from these changes into the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund will just add to the city’s coffers – instead of giving a break to the affected workers. After several years in a row of take backs from city employees, including a previous ballot measure lowering worker pensions, four straight years without raises for many and three years of forced furloughs, we think this is bad for workers who provide the vital services we all rely on. Sadly, the SF Labor Council has come out in favor of this proposition, against the interests of its constituencies, and no union is fighting Prop. D as far as we have heard, but we urge you to vote NO to uphold basic principles of worker-to-worker solidarity.

Proposition E: Budget Line Item for Police Security – Vote YES

This measure would simply require that the SFPD be more open about the money it spends when city officials and dignitaries need police protection. The Chief of Police is solely responsible – and unaccountable to anyone – for that decision. No other facet of the city police budget is hidden like this, and we deserve to know where our money is going. While creating a specific line item in the budget for this expense and providing greater transparency does not guarantee responsible spending, it is a step in the direction of having greater civilian oversight of the SFPD. We urge a YES vote along with the Sunshine Task Force.

Proposition F: Renters Financial Hardship Application – Vote YES

There’s one more measure on the ballot that we can get firmly behind! Prop. F is a good, if modest, step for improving tenants’ rights in one of the country’s most expensive cities. It grants renters the right to apply to the Rent Board to postpone most rent increases if they find themselves unemployed, suffer wage decreases of 20% or more, or receive no cost of living increase in their government benefits. It’s a no-brainer in favor of the working class and we, as well as the San Francisco Tenants’ Union, Senior Action Network and the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, encourage you to vote YES.
Summary of Ballot Recommendations

June 8, 2010 Primary Election

(You may take this summary with you into the voting booth.)

Candidates

Governor (Peace and Freedom Party)………………………Stewart Alexander or Carlos Alvarez
All State and Local Offices*………………………………………….Vote Peace and Freedom Party

California Propositions

Proposition 14 (Eliminate Voter Choices)…………………………………………………….VOTE NO
Proposition 15 (Repeal Ban on Public Campaign Funding)……………………………..VOTE YES
Proposition 16 (Penalize Publicly Owned Utilities)………………………………………..VOTE NO
Proposition 17 (Discriminatory Car Insurance Rates)…………………………………….VOTE NO

San Francisco Propositions

Proposition A (School Facilities “Special Tax”)………………………………………………VOTE NO
Proposition B (S.F. Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond)…………….VOTE NO
Proposition D (Retirement Benefit Costs)……………………………………………………..VOTE NO
Proposition E (Budget Line Item for Police Security)……………………………………..VOTE YES
Proposition F (Renters Financial Hardship Application)………………………………….VOTE YES

*These uncontested candidates will appear on the General Ballot in November