Cash not care - Page 2

Downtown groups are spending big money and making telling alliances in this election

|
(5)
Downtown's money has filled local mailboxes with reams of campaign propaganda
PHOTO BY BEN HOPFER


The group has already received thousands of dollars in soft money from the San Francisco Police Officer's Association, the Building Operators and Managers Association, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers, which supports a high-end hospital and housing complex on Cathedral Hill.

Those downtown groups have spent close to $200,000 on English and Chinese language mailers and robo calls in support of Sparks, Wiener, and Moss in hopes of securing a right-wing shift on the board.

Progressive groups including California Nurses Association, the San Francisco Tenants Union, and the SF Labor Council have tried to fight back in the supervisorial races. While downtown groups spent more than $100,000 promoting Sparks in D6, labor and progressive groups spent $13,000 opposing Sparks and $72,000 supporting progressive D6 candidate Debra Walker.

In D8, progressive groups that include teachers, nurses, and transit riders have outspent the downtown crowd, plunking down $40,000 to oppose Wiener and $90,000 to support progressive candidate Rafael Mandelman. So far, downtown groups have spent about $100,000 to support Wiener.

But in D10, the district with the biggest concentration of low-income families and communities of color, downtown interests spent $52,000 supporting Moss and $5,000 on Lynette Sweet while the Tenants Union was only able to summon $4,000 against Moss. The SF Building and Construction Trades Council spent $4,000 on Malia Cohen.

But that's small potatoes compared to what downtown's heavy-hitters are spending. The so-called Coalition for Sensible Government, which got a $100,000 donation from the San Francisco Association of Realtors, has already collectively spent $96,000 in support of Sparks, Wiener, Moss, Sweet, Rebecca Prozan in D8, Prop. G and Prop. L (sit-lie) and to oppose Prop. M (the progressive plan for police foot patrols) and Prop. N (a transfer tax on properties worth more than $5 million).

The Coalition for Responsible Growth, founded by Anthony Guilfoyle, the father of Mayor Gavin Newsom's ex-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle (who now works as a Fox News personality), has received $85,000 from the Committee on Jobs, $60,000 from the Realtors, and $35,000 from SF Forward. It has focused on spending in support of Prop. G and producing a voter guide for Plan C, the conservative group that supports Sparks, Wiener, Sweet, and Moss

Comments

Because city workers have already agreed to pay their own retirement contributions in full, commencing July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now], it should be noted that regarding pension reform and prop b; very little money will be saved by forcing city workers to contribute their fair share a mere six [6] months prior to schedule.  

so apparently then, the "big savings" hoped for by attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying must come from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component.

in exchange for continued PREVENTIVE health care provisions to children or other needy legal dependant of the hard working city employee, the wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition have opted to use this "hidden" aspect of HEALTHCARE CUTS to boost their "savings" figure which they shamelessly tout knowing full well that such drastic cuts will not only displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford PREVENTIVE healthcare but to also undermine the overall universal healthcare concept, which most San Franciscans recognize as smart and cost effective.

people, please see this for what it is and not for what it is not!  
cuts to PREVENTIVE healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund will end up costing us tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry's skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees are factored in as the only remaining viable options for those no longer able to afford or qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!  
please vote NO on B.

Posted by CJFIowers on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

Because city workers have already agreed to pay their own retirement contributions in full, commencing July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now], it should be noted that regarding pension reform and prop b; very little money will be saved by forcing city workers to contribute their fair share a mere six [6] months prior to schedule.  

so apparently then, the "big savings" hoped for by attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying must come from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component.

in exchange for continued PREVENTIVE health care provisions to children or other needy legal dependant of the hard working city employee, the wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition have opted to use this "hidden" aspect to boost their "savings" figure which they shamelessly tout knowing full well that such drastic cuts will not only displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford PREVENTIVE healthcare but to also undermine the overall universal healthcare concept, which most San Franciscans recognize as smart and cost effective.

people, please see this for what it is and not for what it is not!  
cuts to PREVENTIVE healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund will end up costing us tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry's skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees are factored in as the only remaining viable options for those no longer able to qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!  
please vote NO on B.

Posted by CJFIowers on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

This information is 2 years out of date, I think it applies to the 2008 election.(it's 2010)

Posted by ! Facts on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:19 am

Which information are you referring to, ! Facts? The information in our article is for 2010.

Posted by sarah on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:35 am
LOL

It's the same old song but The Guardian never gets tired of singing it. Proudly voicing the exact same rhetoric for going on 45 years now.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 4:17 pm