ON NOV. 3, San Franciscans woke up to a city where the services we rely on, like youth programs and AIDS clinics, may well close, because Mayor Gavin Newsom's tax proposals – Propositions J and K – went down to defeat. A few days later, the mayor's budget staff announced $97 million in cuts to vital health, safety, and youth programs. Unless the San Francisco Board of Supervisors acts, or the mayor reconsiders, these reductions will take effect Jan. 15, 2005.

As progressives, we risk falling into the usual budget trap, by operating from a position of scarcity and fear rather than from the place of strength we deserve. San Francisco is a town where progressives represent the values-based majority in support of helping the most vulnerable.

We must take a step back before we reenter the budget arena to fight for our collective priorities. As an aide to 2003 Budget Committee chair Chris Daly, I saw firsthand the challenges and opportunities. Now, in the face of structural budget shortfalls, is the time to finally ensure San Francisco's finances reflect our values.

People who voted for taxes should be protected even though the taxes failed Let's be frank. Progressives and liberals, communities of color, and labor households largely supported the tax measures. Now, the very people who pledged their votes to the measures are being punished. We can do better to protect the vulnerable by asking the powerful to contribute their fair share. One example: instead of cutting AIDS services, the Health Department should explore raising health inspection fees for restaurants to the full-service cost, which budget crunchers say would total close to $1 million.

Across-the-board reductions should no longer drive the discussion. We must eliminate certain discretionary programs to save essential services For the past three years the mayor has asked each department to absorb a certain percentage in cuts. I would suggest that it's better to fund 100 percent of the services the city needs and eliminate certain discretionary programs, rather than paying for 60 to 70 percent of everything. Across-the-board cuts abdicate the responsibility policymakers have to set priorities and preserve the city's safety net.

We cannot be afraid of efficiency when it helps progressive aims, but we must be skeptical when it's used to mask conservative goals For too long, certain downtown interests have coded their conservative agenda with the use of the word "efficiency." This usually means devaluing the work of city employees by contracting out. There's another view on efficiency that progressives should support.

A few years back Sup. Sophie Maxwell convened the Nonprofit Contracting Task Force. It recommended real steps to simplifying the city's contract process so nonprofits could spend more time working in our communities and less time filling out duplicative forms. This may mean fewer city positions, but service delivery would be better. That's the sort of efficiency we must achieve to maintain service levels.

We must enact a revenue measure in 2006 If this whole experience has taught us anything, it's that we honestly need more revenue and that the city's going to feel the hurt for some time. It has also taught us that the measure can't be something we come up with on the back of a cocktail napkin simply because certain business interests support it. When activists supported the real estate transfer tax increase in 2002, it was based on sound policy, and even the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, which usually sides with downtown, endorsed it. We can win if we're well-intentioned and well-informed in our efforts.

Under California law, our next shot for a tax measure that requires only a 50 percent vote is in 2006. As we develop the next measure, let's commit to (1) having the policy match our values, (2) building a diverse, values-based constituency for it, and (3) talking to every neighborhood and interest group about what it means. When we do this, we will win.

Bill Barnes is a former aide to Budget Committee chair Chris Daly.