Sacramento DSA Research committee has drafted this voter guide regarding specific candidates and statewide propositions. The committee has only recommended endorsements on propositions that have demonstrated explicitly how they will effect the working class. For this reason the Sacramento DSA research committee has taken no official stance on Propositions 1-4 or Proposition 12 because the effects on the working class were not clearly laid out in the language of the propositions.
|CA State Senate 4||Phillip Kim|
|Measure U||No Consensus / Lean No|
Disclaimer: DSA Sacramento endorses only those candidates who identify as socialists, are DSA members themselves, and/or have approached our chapter seeking an endorsement.
For CA State Senate District 4: Philip Kim
Phillip Kim is knowledgeable, experienced, and a candidate for the working class. He worked closely and fought vigorously with his union at Thunder Valley Casino for seven years. Later he was an active member of the Bernie Sanders campaign. As an organizer for the California Nurses Association he has been on the front lines fighting for universal healthcare. He has been a vocal critic of corporate democrats such as Anthony Rendon who is responsible for shelving S.B. 562. Phillip Kim also chairs the Healthcare Committee for Sacramento DSA. Phillip Kim is pro labor, supports Medicare for all, and is an active DSA member. This is why Sacramento DSA has endorsed Phillip Kim for California State Senator of District 4.
CA State Propositions
(broaden property tax caps) - NO
This proposition would broaden the property tax caps created by Proposition 13. Sac DSA recommends voting NO on Proposition 5.
Proposition 13, passed in 1978, ties property tax rates to the most recent sale price, not current market value. These sharp limitations on property tax revenues have driven much of the austerity politics in California over the last 40 years. A 1988 extension of Prop 13 allowed homeowners age 55 and older to take a one-time transfer of the “most recent sale price” to a “replacement home,” with some restrictions on transfers between counties and based on the relative market values of the houses. Proposition 5 would remove most of the restrictions on transfers, making the problems of Prop 13 even worse.
(repeal gas tax) - NO
This proposition would reverse the gas tax increase approved by voters earlier this year (Prop 69). Sac DSA recommends voting NO on Proposition 6.
Proposition 6 is a Republican backlash against the gas tax.
(limit dialysis clinic profits) - YES
This proposition would limit the profit margins for private dialysis clinics. Sac DSA recommends voting YES on Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 would require private dialysis clinics to issue refunds to insurers or patients for revenue about 115% of their patient costs and healthcare improvements. This would effectively limit their rate of profit to 15%. The largest supporter of the proposition is SEIU-UHW West. An opponent of Prop 8 claimed that “the sole reason UHW is pushing this measure is to organize workers in dialysis clinics.”
(legalize rent control) - YES
This proposition would abolish Costa-Hawkins, allowing communities to adopt rent control. California DSA chapters have done much of the groundwork in support of this proportion. Sac DSA recommends voting YES on Prop 10.
(allow requiring EMTs to be on call) - NO
This proposition is an employer attempting to grab more power and profit from its employees. Sac DSA recommends voting NO on Proposition 11.
A state Supreme Court decision in December 2016 implies that, under current law, workers' breaks cannot be interrupted by their employer. This proposition would create an exemption for emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics. Ambulance companies would be able to require their EMTs and paramedics to stay on call during their breaks. An analysis estimates that ambulance companies would have to hire 25% more EMTs and paramedics to comply with the law as it stands.
Sacramento Measure U
(sales tax increase for general city services) - lean no (no consensus)
The Research Committee was unable to reach consensus on Measure U. Measure U proposes to raise the city sales tax by 1 cent on the dollar, on top of the existing statewide sales tax, for the purpose of raising general revenue for a wide range of city services. Many of the programs this measure is aimed at funding are those which could benefit a broad range of Sacramento’s communities, such as affordable housing construction and other community services. However, the measure also pledges to increase funding for “public safety” and the Sacramento Police Department. Needless to say, at a time when Sac PD is under pressure for repeatedly killing unarmed Black and brown people, and due to our larger structural problems with policing as an institution, we do not believe that increasing funding to Sac PD can be justified. Also, while limits on taxation due to Prop 13 has limited ways that California municipalities may fund increased public services, sales taxes have a regressive impact which is felt hardest by poor and working-class people. While we don’t believe in recycling talking points of anti-tax reactionaries, we do have problems with regressive taxes such as Measure U, as well as concerns about how this revenue may be spent.