THE SAN FRANCISCO budget battle got off to a flying start June 7 when Sup. Chris Daly made a motion that would have effectively stopped the city from making any cuts in public health programs. It was a good move and a sign that at least some supervisors aren't willing to go along with Mayor Gavin Newsom's cuts without a fight. But Daly's plan was defeated, 6-4 – and every supervisor who voted against it needs to start explaining why public health funding should be reduced when a few other overfunded departments, like the police, are actually getting budget increases.

Daly's proposal came on what's normally a routine procedural step. Under state law, before any county can cut health services, the Board of Supervisors must hold a special hearing, called a Bielenson hearing, to let the public weigh in on the plan. Since Newsom's plan calls for some substantial health cuts, the board was simply voting to schedule that hearing. Daly moved not schedule the Bielenson – and if that happened, deputy city attorney Ted Lakey advised the board, then legally, no health cuts could be approved.

Unfortunately, only Daly, Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, and Sophie Maxwell voted in favor of that approach. Sure, it was a technical gimmick, but it would have saved critical programs from the axe – and would have forced the board and the mayor to look harder at new revenue sources and at other departments where there's still plenty to cut.

An obvious example: the San Francisco Police Department is slated to receive about a 5 percent increase – a total of more than $14 million. The day of the board meeting, the cops spent nearly $1 million on a massive show of force to intimidate protesters outside the biotech convention; that was a huge overkill (the cops often seemed to outnumber the largely peaceful protesters) and shows how quickly and freely the SFPD wastes money. (Another example: as Ann Harrison reported last week, the cops are wasting tens of thousands of dollars trying to bust pot growers who are providing legal medicine to approved dispensaries.) The San Francisco Fire Department, which may have the most bloated budget in the city, is getting only a very modest cut.

And as we noted June 2 ("Newsom's First Budget"), the amount of new revenue the mayor is proposing is far too low.

As Rachel Brahinksy reported last week ("Invisible Cuts"), Newsom is trying to balance the budget with a series of moves that don't appear to be huge cuts but will have lasting impacts. Privatization of city services – a central part of his plan – is a terrible mistake, and restructuring departments, while it may make sense in theory, will almost certainly lead to significant service cuts. The supervisors can't just tinker with this budget – they need to demand real changes, starting with a pledge not to cut essential services for the poor.