Search Results
Please enter search terms in the box below.   This search is site wide including Retiree Advocate issues from January 2025 forward for pre 2025 issues of the Advocate please go to the Advocate Archives

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2026 PSARA 2026 Legislative Agenda Click here to download PSARA Leg. Agenda pdf Click here to download talking Points PSARA is a multi-generational grass roots organization advocating for all people, and seniors in particular, being able to live their lives with economic security, dignity, and respect. Healthcare PSARA believes that comprehensive, affordable, accessible, and culturally appropriate health care is a fundamental human right. Promote Leveling the Playing Field in Medicare, SJM 8002 Protect against healthcare program cuts and advance immigrant health equity and food security (budget) Regulate the use of Prior Authorization in healthcare decisions, SB 5395 / HB 1566 Climate and Environmental Justice PSARA supports the right of all people to live and work in a clean and healthy environment. Divest Washington State Investment Board funds from fossil fuels, No Coal Act SB 5439 Increase environmental justice by improving government decisions, Curb Act HB 1303 / SB 5380 Create standards for Data Center operations Fiscal Reform and Revenue PSARA supports a state budget that is transparent, pays a living wage to state workers, and provides services that help our people, economy, and environment thrive. Support progressive revenue HB 2100 Well Washington Fund Housing and Homelessness PSARA supports keeping people housed, building more low-income housing, and preventing homelessness in the first place. Workers’ Rights and Economic Justice PSARA supports legislation that promotes healthy families and workplaces. Extend unemployment benefits to undocumented workers SB 5626 / HB 1773 Expand Working Families Tax Credit HB 1214 / SB 5768 Strengthen Paid Family & Medical Leave financing Promote Washington Future Fund pilot (Baby Bonds) SB 5541 Provide greater security to Washington workers against ICE practices on the job (Immigrant Worker Protection Act) SB 5822 / HB 2015 Community Safety and Justice PSARA supports legislation that promotes community safety and justice for all of our community members. Ensure proper identification of law enforcement (No Secret Police Act) SB 5855 / HB 2173 < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2026 Trump Administration Abandons Attack on Older Disabled Americans Steve Kofahl Late last month, the Social Security Administration (SSA) withdrew a proposed rule that would have made it far more difficult for older workers to access their earned Social Security Disability (SSDI) and Medicare benefits. The rule would have also denied Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid benefits to older low-in-come individuals. The rule would have directly affected entitlement to cash SSDI and SSI payments, but the loss of Medicare and Medicaid benefit eligibility for disabled individuals would have constituted severe collateral damage. SSA disability determinations are based on medical evidence, work history, jobs available in the U.S., education, and age. The rule would have limited age consideration to applicants over age 60, or eliminated age as a factor altogether. A September 18 analysis by Jack Smalligan, of the Urban Institute, estimated that eligibility for SSDI applicants alone could be reduced by as much as 20% overall, and by up to 30% for older workers. Even a 10% reduction could cause 500,000 people to lose access to $82 billion in benefits over 10 years, including 80,000 widows and children. Many older workers, denied SSDI benefits, would likely claim early retirement benefits at age 62, reducing their lifetime benefits by 30 percent compared to what they would have received in SSDI, which converts to unreduced retirement benefits at full retirement age (67). House Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz led the effort by only 165 (should have been more) Democratic members in calling on SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano to halt the plan. Their October 20 press release identified the proposed rule as a priority of Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It noted that the average SSDI beneficiary is 56 years old, many had worked physically demanding jobs, and that nearly 42% were found to be eligible because age was considered in the decision. They noted that adaptability to new skills and jobs generally decreases with age, as do the effects of disabling impairments. The letter closed with an appeal to reverse recent SSA staff losses, and to present a plan to rebuild frontline and adjudicative capacity in order to eliminate backlogs and meet statutory obligations to claimants and beneficiaries. President Trump has repeatedly assured Americans that he will not cut, or even touch, Social Security. He has demonstrated, however, through his remarks and actions, that he has little regard for disabled Americans. Nevertheless, in this case, advocates and enough House Democrats pushed back hard, and prevailed rather quickly. The great Social Security Act programs are a principal focus of PSARA efforts. The 1935 Social Security Act that established retirement benefits (Title 2) has been amended since that date to add SSDI in 1956, Medicare (Title 18) and Medicaid (Title 19) in 1965, and SSI (Title 16) in 1972. Another amendment extended coverage to self employed individuals in 1951, and there have been many other expansions and improvements over the 90 years since FDR signed the first iteration of the Act. However, there have been no improvements for 43 years, which was when President Nixon signed the 1972 amendment that created SSI, establishing Federal benefits for low-income aged, blind, and disabled individuals. It is time for additional improvements. Not only do we need to protect existing programs, let's collectively determine to expand these vital programs and ensure that wealthy individuals pay their fair share. We must not allow discouragement and despair to defeat our efforts to make a better America for ourselves, neighbors, children, and grandchildren. Whether it’s addressing environmental degradation, race and gender discrimination, homelessness, health care, income inequality, immigration, oligarchy, or any of our priorities, we need to educate ourselves and others, and push back hard against the cruel and incompetent elected and appointed officials who plague us. We can win these battles, and we must. Steve Kofahl is a retired President of AFGE 3937, representing Social Security workers, and a member of PSARA's Executive Board. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents March 2026 Coal: The Low-Hanging Fossil Fuel Jefl Johnson My projected retirement date is 2060, and I would like to retire on a healthy planet, with a healthy pension fund.” Keith Gonzalez, an employee at the Washington State Department of Ecology and a member of the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), said this while testifying on the Coal Act, SB 5439, before the Senate Ways and Means Committee on January 29, 2026. Keith made the argument that a fundamental principle of the State Investment Board’s fiduciary duty is impartiality – treating all beneficiary groups equally. This principle has been violated, he said, through the SIB’s investments in coal and other fossil fuels. These investments lock us into high-warming climate investments that accelerate climate disaster and significantly disadvantage future state employee beneficiaries over current beneficiaries. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and Third Act, testified that, “Washington State is not being asked to do anything novel or revolutionary,” but, rather, to join other institutions and endowments with assets of $41 trillion that have joined the effort to divest from fossil fuels. Bill pointed out that, not only is coal the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, but it is also the fossil fuel asset with the steepest decline in value. Divesting from coal “is the ultimate and easiest no brainer, and I ask you to take action quickly because climate change is happening quickly.” Donna Albert, former state employee and WFSE member, and current Retired Public Employee Council of Washington (RPEC) member, pointed out that the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) doesn’t use its voice very well in proxy battles over corporate climate and carbon reduction policies; it received a grade of D from the Sierra Club, which evaluates pension fund accountability and divestment actions around climate issues. Andrew Eckels, 350.org Seattle, asked, “Why should a public agency prioritize short-term marginal gains over mitigating the risk of long-term catastrophic damages of investing in coal?” He argued that climate risk from fossil fuel investments is literally playing with fire. Barbara Carey, former WFSE member and current member of RPEC, testified that, while the WSIB still has $2.6 billion invested in coal, New York State, California, Oregon, and New York City have already used the Global Coal Exit list to divest from this dirtiest of fossil fuels. Adam Lough, Physicians for Social Responsibility, testified that “air pollution caused by burning coal is linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, and neurological disorders. No amount of returns on (coal assets) is worth Washington-funded disease.” Anna Joy Gillis, a state employee at the Department of Commerce, testified that she objects to her contributions being invested in coal assets and that these types of investments are antithetical to Washington State’s Climate Commitment Act and energy strategy. It should be noted that testifiers were given 60 seconds (with up to 5-10 seconds overage) to make their cases. I blurted out the following in my one minute: “Madame Chair and Committee Members, my name is Jeff Johnson, former President of the WSLC and current co-president of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action. "I support the Coal Act for three fundamental reasons: "First, a decade ago, I testified before this legislature that climate change was an existential crisis. Since then, the financial industry has invested $8 trillion in fossil fuels, dramatically increasing the magnitude of this crisis and the urgency to stop using fossil fuels. "To my way of thinking, maintaining direct fossil fuel assets in the SIB portfolio means we are collectively and willfully building our own gallows. Second, fossil fuel assets are a bad investment. For the past decade, fossil fuel assets have been quite volatile and have significantly underperformed the rate of return of the Standard and Poor Index and most other assets. Under the standard definition of financial prudence and rules of fiduciary responsibility, fossil fuels are a bad investment. Factoring in fossil fuel externalities, these assets become financially imprudent. "Third, Washington State has led on many progressive economic reforms – minimum wage, family leave, and paid safe and sick days. Rebalancing the SIB portfolio out of fossil fuels will be an example to other institutional investors that you can achieve a good rate of return while helping to save the planet at the same time. Not too shabby an idea." Only one group testified against the Coal Act and that was the Washington State Investment Board. If you look at the sign-up sheet, will you see the SIB listed as a NO? Of course not. But what they said repeatedly is we have produced great returns, we know what we are doing. But then they said, “we have our investment beliefs… any kind of investment or asset class restraint you put on our portfolio will likely result in lower returns over time and will also increase costs.” In my next article we will look at this claim and evaluate what type of voice the SIB projects. Jefl Johnson is a retired president of the Washington State Labor Council and Co-President of PSARA. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents February 2026 Pierce County PSARA Takes on Sheriff Swank On a rainy Friday night, January 9, a number of Pierce County PSARA activist members joined with about 100 others for a protest in Puyallup. The reasons? Former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was in town to support Pierce County Sheriff, Keith Swank, for a “Save Our Sheriffs” rally, intended to “preserve the authority” of elected sheriffs across the state. Following the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis earlier that week, Sheriff Swank had commented on X: “PSA: if law enforcement tells you to stop, STOP. You can always sue later if your rights were violated. Even if you are right, do you want to be dead right?” These sorts of factors led Erik Showacy and others in Indivisible Puyallup to organize the protest. PSARA activist and Indivisible Tacoma leader, Julie Andrzejewski joined the protest and commented, “We are concerned about the sheriff here in Pierce County, who has been indicating that he wants to cooperate with ICE and the deportations and that is against the law here in the state.” She was referring to our state’s Keep Washington Working law, which restricts local law enforcement agencies from assisting federal immigration authorities. More locally, last March, Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello issued a directive reiterating this key legal point. That was followed in April by the adoption of a resolution by the Pierce County Council on the same theme. Meanwhile, out of the rain and inside a nearby conservative church, Sheriff Swank confirmed Andrzejewski’s contentions and indicated his continued opposition to state law and county rules. “The Executive issues executive orders that tell me that I’m not allowed, or anybody, no department, no elected official, was allowed to enter into any contract with any federal agency. Well, I know that’s unconstitutional. I’m independently elected,” he said. PSARA Pierce County will continue to proudly join with many others in confronting Sheriff Swank. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents March 2026 How States Can Unite, Fight Back, and Reclaim Our Democracy Lisa Dekker Is there a way that blue states can stop the radical authoritarian takeover by this federal government? A bold strategy to do just that is called "soft secession or oppositional federalism." It is broadly defined in Wikipedia as “non-cooperation with the US federal government by a city or state.” It is non-violent, utilizes legal state powers and precedents, and relies on the resources of blue state governors, attorneys general, and legislatures working in sync with each other. Together, states have tremendous power to create the leverage necessary to resist the law-less and violent actions of ICE, preserve funding that has been denied, and maintain economic resilience and social safety nets regardless of federal corruption. It could be called a form of large-scale peaceful protest, similar to civil disobedience, but enacted by states themselves. One example of how soft secession is already happening is the West Coast Health Alliance. Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii formulated their own vaccine standards and distribute shots in order “to uphold scientific integrity” in public health, in direct defiance of the current Center for Disease Control and Prevention led by RFK Jr. Why use such an extreme solution? While some say the country is on the road to fascism, others look at history’s examples and say we are already there. Using Project 2025 as their roadmap, this administration has been a juggernaut, moving more swiftly and effectively on many fronts than anyone expected as it harms innocent people, tramples the constitution, ignores judicial orders, and overwhelms the mediasphere with chaos and confusion. “Our government is being torn apart root and branch [and] we are in an economic and rule-of-law crisis,” said UCLA law professor Jon Michaels on a recent KQED/PBS Forum. While a few voters in rural red states may be unhappy with the effects of the tariffs, six separate polls done in January show that between 38 and 42 percent of Americans still support the MAGA agenda. This indicates that any major reversals in the regime’s tactics are unlikely. In addition, despite a handful of strong Democratic voices calling out the corruption, because most Republicans in Congress reflexively kowtow to Trump, this body no longer serves as one of the federal government’s “checks and balances.” There are ways to create the foundation for a blue state offensive. Establish accountability. Blue state attorneys general already communicate regularly, share legal strategies, and coordinate litigation. Federal officials violating state laws can be prosecuted by state attorneys general because state criminal statutes apply to anyone within state borders. This includes federal immigration agents who kidnap citizens or do home invasions without the proper warrants. In addition, the Supremacy Clause does not protect violations of the constitution or protect officials when they exceed their authority. Create financial leverage. In 2023 seven blue states contributed approximately $180 billion more to the federal government than they got back in federal spending. They can use that leverage to resist illegal directives coming from Washington, DC. A public state-owned bank (which already exists in North Dakota, and which currently has a bill in the Washington State Legislature) can return revenue while providing low-cost loans for infrastructure, education, and small business. States can pass a law requiring every employer to redirect federal tax withholdings to a state escrow account instead of to the IRS. They can hold these funds until the federal government certifies that it has met its obligations. The Impoundment Act of 1974 prevents presidents from refusing to spend appropriated funds. Recall that in October 2025’s shutdown the administration froze $18 billion in New York City infrastructure, and $8 billion in climate funding across 16 blue states, despite the fact that withholding appropriations is illegal. Trump has been directing ICE and Homeland Security to target blue states like Minnesota and Illinois with ICE surges and kidnap-pings, while using millions of blue state tax dollars to do it. We know that this administration and its corrupt Department of Justice will push back against challenges from state governments. But with enough states working together and citizens pressing their governors, attorneys general, and legislators to use the legal powers they have, we can protect our people, our rights, and our social safety nets. As a clear-eyed opposition looking down a very dark road, we have little to lose by trying. With acknowledgments to journalist Christopher Armitage for content from his many writings about Soft Secession, found on his Substack, The Existentialist Republic. Lisa Dekker is PSARA's Co-VP for Out-reach and a leader of PSARA's Clallam County Committee. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2026 Building Community Power Jay Stansell (Reprinted by permission of the Jewish Coalition for Immigrant Justice) While we have all become accustomed to the workshop labels "Know Your Rights" and "KYR," what we really need to teach each other is our collective "Community Power." Though mechanics of KYR remain key, when we invoke those rights today we will likely face illegal ICE response. Knowing our rights is no longer enough. We now teach and celebrate the Community Power that gives strength to our rights. Community Power strengthens each of us and invites others into our work, so that not one, but many, allies and at-risk Community Members come out to nonviolently face, expose and slow ICE enforcement; so that not one but many activists come out to video-record ICE, send text alerts to neighborhood watch groups; so that we speak to agents in large numbers but one voice: "We don't answer questions! Don't open your doors, ICE is present! You are not welcome in this space, in this community! We want you out of here!" And Community Power expands and grows the resistance. Each one of you has someone for whom you are a role model and an example of how to respond to the darkness around us all. Each of you has many more people who look to you for advice, knowledge and information about the challenges we face. We can bring these family, friends, and colleagues into the movement, and keep building our communities of care, compassion and resistance. The propaganda from ICE and the government wants us to believe that ICE is at war with the "worst of the worst" in our communities, that their numbers are so massive and armored that resistance is futile, when we, the people who live in these communities, know that they are attacking day-care workers, health care aides, roofers, landscapers, and the families that we see, respect and value every day. We train each other in Community Power, because there is strength, beauty and poetry in Community. We are many -- and growing more each day -- and the cruel and uncaring people in power right now are far fewer in comparison, and far less powerful than they believe. Thank you all for the work that you each do. It is a privilege to be among you in the effort to rebuild a better world. I'll close with some words from long-time activist Cleve Jones who spoke at San Franciso's No Kings rally on October 18, which perfectly capture how I view community: The pronouns I use the most are the ones probably understood the least by those in the White House today. They are WE, US and OURS. We are in this together. And it is up to us to be the leaders we need to save our country and our democracy. [...] What will you do to imagine and launch and sustain the massive campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience and non-cooperation that history informs us is now required? Look to your hearts and find the abiding strength that dwells there. Look to the sky and all the magnificent beauty that surrounds us still. Look to those who stand proudly at your shoulders. Look to your ancestors and claim your future. We are the people. Now is the time. This is the moment. Jay Stansell is a retired immigration attorney who has led Know Your Rights trainings with the Jewish Coalition for Immigrant Justice. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2026 US House Returns to the 1950s with “Anti-Socialist” Resolution 86 Dems join GOP to Condemn the “Horrors of Socialism” Mike Andrew On November 21, the US House of Representatives voted 285-98 to pass a resolution titled “Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism.” The text starts off with lurid – and historically inaccurate – charges of death, devastation, and ruin allegedly flowing from socialism, and ends with the declaration that “Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.” It’s as if Congress went to sleep on November 20, 2025, and woke up on November 21, 1950. The resolution was introduced by Maria Salazar, representing a district including parts of Miami and surrounding suburbs, and cosponsored by 63 other Republicans. Rep. Salazar is the daughter of Gusanos who fled Cuba after the revolution. Given her family’s origins, it’s easy to see where this passage comes from: “[T]he Castro regime in Cuba expropriated the land of Cuban farmers and the businesses of Cuban entrepreneurs, stealing their possessions and their livelihoods, and exiling millions with nothing but the clothes on their backs…” In simple language, “the Cuban revolution took away my family’s property and wealth, therefore I hate socialism.” But that happened 66 years ago. Why this resolution, and why now? Rep. Mike Simpson, Republican from Idaho, offers a clue. "Now more than ever, with newly elected leaders like Zohran Mamdani in New York, it is crucial we remain vigilant against this failed ideology,” he said in a press release after the vote. “America has always been the guiding light of freedom, and socialism is far from that founding principle.” Beyond smearing popular democratic socialists like Mamdani, it’s clear that the Trump administration is preparing for war against Venezuela – which was specifically condemned in the resolution – and ratcheting up tensions with China. So this document also serves to justify future US military actions against those “horrible socialists.” The House roll call indicates that 86 Democrats teamed up with Republicans to vote Yes on this measure. Among them were senior leaders like Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Jim Clyburn, along with a long list of pro-business suburban Democrats such as Pete Aguilar, Ami Bera, Gil Cisneros, and Josh Gottheimer. In the Washington State delegation, both Republicans voted Yes. They were joined by three Democrats – Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Kim Schrier, and Marilyn Strickland. Three Democrats voted No – Pramila Jayapal, Emily Randall, and Adam Smith. Two more Democrats – Suzan DelBene and Rick Larsen – did not vote, along with 52 other Representatives. Many of the most senior House Democrats are apparently still hostile to bold, progressive young candidates like Mamdani, and Seattle’s Katie Wilson, and still afraid of their rising popularity. At the same time, many Democrats seem to agree – at least tacitly – with Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. That means that we have some work to do. Our elected representatives should understand that it’s not acceptable to join with the far right and vote for right-wing propaganda pieces like this resolution. And if they don’t understand it now, they should be made to understand. They should also understand that candidates like Mamdani and Wilson didn’t win their races because they tricked the voters into casting ballots for sinister socialist schemes. They won because they offered practical ways to make people’s lives better – free bus service, publicly-owned grocery stores, more social housing. Most people think Hakeem Jeffries will become Speaker after the 2026 Congressional elections. Let him make people’s lives better. Then he can condemn socialism all he wants. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents June 2025 North Olympic Peninsula 2025: Rural Resistance! Lisa Dekker Like the rest of Washington State, Clallam County and the Peninsula are reeling from the harms happening now – and those yet to come – from this corrupt regime and their flagrant refusal to follow the law. But we are not taking this lying down. Our residents and our leaders are determined to resist. Olympic National Park, just outside Port Angeles, gets thousands of visitors each year and is an economic engine for the region. It was already unable to meet basic maintenance needs, and reduced staffing will make it worse. In addition, although $80 million was al- ready allocated by Congress to replace the Hurricane Ridge Day Lodge that burned down in 2023, delivery of those dollars is now uncertain. For many years Port Angeles has been a gateway for Canadian visitors via the Coho/BlackBall Ferry that connects us to Victoria, B.C., just 12 miles away. But now, the absurd tariffs and territorial threats coming from #47 have resulted in an understandable backlash of Canadians deciding not to spend their tourist dollars here. This will have grave economic consequences for our restaurants, hotels, and small businesses this summer unless the tariffs are undone. Likely the most unconscionable harms to individuals here would be the drastic cuts to Medicaid in the current Republican budget. With 20 percent of our adults and more than 37 percent of our children dependent on Medicaid in Clallam County alone, the devastation would be felt by thousands here on the Peninsula. So how are we fighting back? There have been sizeable rallies in Port Ange- les, Sequim, and Port Townsend (Jefferson County) that have many new faces and an enthusiastic response from the community. Indivisible Sequim, first begun in 2016, has had a surge of new members and has backed several rallies. One of the largest gatherings in Port Angeles, and the one with the most young people, was a raucous and upbeat march supporting the Olympic National Park and Park staffers who had been abruptly laid off. Clallam Democrats have become re-energized. With the leadership of their Chair, PSARA member Ellen Menshew, they have hosted timely forums and promoted many rallies. With a new online newsletter, Clallam Democrats Rising, plus a blog, a presence on Substack and Blue Sky, and an events calendar, the Dems are keeping members informed and involved. Our three County Commissioners even did their bit with a letter to Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congresswoman Emily Randall, reminding them of the impacts being felt here and asking that they “do all that they can to support our community.” We don’t know what’s next, but here in the northwest corner, we saw that despair became righteous anger, then hope, and now resistance. We are determined to fight back. Lisa Dekker is PSARA's Co-VP for Outreach and a leader of PSARA's Clallam County organizing committee. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents June 2025 Resisting Immigrant Deportations – This Is Just the Beginning Cindy Domingo Two hundred fifty people packed Seattle’s International Association of Machinists Local 751 union hall on May 3rd, with another 60+ online, to de- liver a powerful message to the Trump administration that they would resist deportations occurring at a massive level in the US. In a show of unity, a multi-racial crowd of Asian Americans, Latinos, and white people coming from over 150 organizations/affiliations listened to three different panels composed of immigrant rights organizations and advocates, elected officials, lawyers, educators, and representatives from faith-based organizations, labor, and community-based organizations. The new organization Standing for Democracy was the convenor of the conference, which was cosponsored by another 20 organizations, including PSARA and the major statewide immigrant rights organizations NW Immi- grant Rights Project and Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network. Opening keynote speaker Rosalinda Guillen, Executive Director and cofounder of Community to Com- munity, provided a vision for Standing for Democracy as she recalled the history and work of the Washington State Rainbow Coalition (WSRC) of the 1980-90’s. WSRC, often portrayed as a multi-racial movement that had an inside/outside Democratic Party strategy, was part of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, but maintained its independence from Jackson. The WSRC developed a comprehensive forward- looking program, which encompassed a local, state, national, and international platform that guided its domestic and foreign policies that remain relevant today. Elected officials and political candidates coming to the WSRC for endorsements were measured by that program. For many during that period, the WSRC became the model of what participatory democracy could look like in the context of a progressive program and party. Presentations by County Council member Teresa Mosqueda and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (via video message) both signaled that the first 100 days of the Trump administration’s policies are quickly moving us towards fascism. The attacks on immigrants, misinformation, denial of due process, and Trump’s seizure of power held by Congress and the Courts is the classic playbook of dictators and authoritarian regimes. Both women called on conference attendees to continue to resist and organize because it is the power of the people that will stop the dismantling of our democracy. The conference reflected the willing- ness of people to come together to de- fend immigrants but also peoples’ need to develop concrete strategies and plans to further disrupt Trump’s over- all move towards fascism. As Jayapal stated, the attacks against immigrants are about all of us and all our democrat- ic rights. While Standing for Democracy in Washington State is just beginning, some ideas from the conference are already taking form. Out of the conference panel on litigation strategies, a group of lawyers led by Attorney Michael Withey are developing a legal “Strike Force” that will use various tools like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to uncover information on the strategies of ICE and local police forces in Washington State. As a sanctuary state, local police forces are not allowed to cooperate with ICE on sharing information on immigrants or cooperating on arrests for federal civil immigration violations. Information from FOIAs could lead to further lawsuits to stop illegal activity. King County Councilmember Jorge Baron, a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington State and nationally, and Mosqueda both called upon Standing for Democracy and attendees to assist in developing and supporting policies that resist the Trump administration’s attacks on im- migrants, diversity/equity/inclusion, and programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. Washington State has already been targeted by Trump for severe federal budget cut- backs. Although that policy has been contested in court, the two Councilmembers along with Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who presented on the allies panel, need a strong movement to develop new revenue to support core programs for working class people of our state and those most impacted by poverty and racism. Organizers for Standing for Democracy are considering going to the vari- ous organizations that cosponsored the conference and others across the state who are interested in building an inter- sectional movement to resist Trump’s anti-democratic policies and his moves toward fascism. There are many organizations operating throughout Washington State that work on a variety of issues, including in rural Washington and in municipalities of various sizes. These organizations do great work in their communities. As a new organization, we want to know how we can move forward together without usurping what others are doing already. One of the ideas that evolved out of the Social Forum model was the concept of Peoples’ Assemblies where communities of particular areas or sectors come together to develop their own platform based on their experiences, knowledge, and aspirations. This model has the potential of develop- ing a statewide platform similar to the Washington State Rainbow Coalition. Another tool that the National office of Standing for Democracy has developed, which was tested at the conference, was a curriculum on fascism that could potentially be adapted for use in particular sectors or communities. Standing for Democracy is holding a follow-up Zoom gathering on May 22. It is open to conference attendees who would like to further develop ideas and strategies for working together to grow our movement. Cindy Domingo is PSARA's Co-VP for Outreach and a veteran activist with LELO (Legacy of Equality, Leadership, and Organizing) and APALA (Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance). < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2026 Inside CMS’s Troubling WISeR Vendor List and the Power It Hands to Private Contractors By Seth Glickman, MD, and Rachel Madley, PhD CMS’s chosen WISeR vendors include firms tied to insurer-backed venture funds, former Big Insurance executives and private equity. (Reprinted from HEALTH CARE un-covered) Earlier this year, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) announced plans to begin the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model in 2026. The model will retain private companies currently using AI to process prior authorizations in the private Medicare Advantage (MA) program to use those processes in the traditional Medicare (TM) program on services that will newly require prior authorization or pre-payment review. As we previously published in HEALTH CARE un-covered , the WISeR model is more than just some small administrative update. The new model dramatically shifts how traditional Medicare patients will access care. Under this demonstration program, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will let private, for-profit contractors and their AI tools decide whether seniors get treatments their doctors recommend – and those contractors will be paid based on how much care they deny. After months of speculation and anticipation, CMS this week announced the private companies selected to participate in the model beginning January 1, 2026. The six companies selected are Cohere Health, Inc., Genzeon Corporation, Humata Health, Inc., Innovaccer Inc., Virtix Health LLC, and Zyter Inc.. Those six companies now have the ability to decide if seniors or people with disabilities in traditional Medicare get the care recommended by their doctors for 17 medical procedures that previously did not require prior authorization. This is a lot of trust to put in private companies, so we dug more into the ones chosen by CMMI to participate in the model. We previously described how insurers and affiliated venture capital firms use their influence and leverage to “self- deal," in effect creating opportunities to boost their profits. The WISeR program and the participants selected appear to follow the same playbook. Most of the companies CMS selected are backed by insurer-linked venture funds or staffed by former insurance industry executives, including from Elevance, Optum, Kaiser, Highmark, and HCSC. For example, Humata Health lists four venture capital firms backed by insurance companies as key investors: Blue Venture Fund (backed by Blue Cross Blue Shield), Optum Ventures (backed by UnitedHealth Group), LRV Health (backed by over 30 health systems and insurers), and Highmark Ventures (backed by Blue Cross Blue Shield insurer Highmark Health). These concerning ties are replicated in other model participants including Cohere Health, which is funded through venture capital and contract ties to Humana, and Innovaccer, which is funded by Kaiser Permanente and Banner. Several already operate in Medicare Advantage, in which private insurers routinely use prior authorization to delay or deny coverage for needed care. Between the lines: WISeR effectively imports the same harmful machinery into traditional Medicare for the first time in the program’s history. Amplifying this concern is that several are pure technology companies without any medical oversight or leadership. This raises serious questions about how they will comply with state and federal regulations requiring licensed clinical personnel to oversee utilization decisions (for good reason). Precious little is known about other participants. The website of one of the participants, Virtix Health, doesn’t disclose any executives or board members. It doesn’t even list a physical address or phone number, and the last time the company uploaded a news story was in 2021. These are hardly things that inspire the public’s confidence about its legitimacy, let alone entrusting it to oversee the care of Medicare beneficiaries. What is known about Virtix Health is that it offers risk adjustment coding services, such as chart reviews, to MA plans. These chart reviews are used by MA insurers to add medical codes to an enrollee’s chart, making them appear sicker than they are in order to receive a higher payment from the government. Overpayments, driven largely by coding intensity, means MA plans will be paid $84 billion more than traditional Medicare in 2025; cumulative overpayments between 2025-2034 could reach $1.2 trillion. CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz pledged in his confirmation hearing to go after excessive coding by insurers, which is at odds with his agency giving a contract for the WISeR model to a company that enables this practice as its main line of business. All this begs the question: How were these companies chosen? It’s an important one, especially given the strong ties between current and past leadership at CMMI and the health insurance and venture capital industries that will profit from this program. We have previously called for the disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in the selection of vendors by health insurers (and in this case CMS, which controls billions of our tax dollars), including any underlying financial relationships with the vendor and/or related investors. CMMI has not disclosed whether or how they managed these potential conflicts of interest in the selection process. The American public deserves to know. A coalition of lawmakers have introduced the Seniors Deserve SMARTER Care Act to stop WISeR before it launches. The lawmakers warn that the model “creates a dangerous incentive to put profits ahead of patients’ health” — and they’re right. At the same time, public confidence in insurers’ use of AI has cratered amid lawsuits and reports of algorithms overriding physicians’ judgment. Even President Trump has blasted insurers as “BIG,”“BAD,” and “money-sucking.” Yet WISeR hands many of these same corporate players a new federal revenue stream — and unprecedented authority over seniors’ care in traditional Medicare, which has historically been a safe haven from Big Insurance meddling in coverage. But now, with CMS barreling toward a January 2026 launch, we know, for the first time, exactly which companies will have that power. Editor's Note: Virtix Health is the company selected by CMS to determine prior authorization In Washington State. Rachel Madley, PhD, is Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Center for Health & Democracy. She previously worked for Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. She received her PhD from Columbia University and has written for publications including The New York Times. Seth Glickman, MD, is a former insurance and health system senior executive. He now is a researcher and advocate for reform in the health care finance space. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents March 2026 Capitol Outlook 2026 Pam Crone Big Picture Short sessions move quickly. They are only 60 days and provide an opportunity for legislators to “tidy” things up from the previous long session. They follow the odd-numbered, 105-day sessions during which legislators labor to draft a two-year operating budget. Short sessions are customarily centered on adjusting that budget and reconsidering bills that died in the longer session. This year follows the pattern to a certain extent with some major wrinkles. There is not a whopping $16 billion deficit, but a not-to-be-dismissed, $2.3 billion one, in part a result of the havoc created by the President and Congress. Session will end March 12. As of this writing, much still hangs in the balance. Though there is hope of passing the Millionaires Tax, the projected revenue is years away from being realized. So legislators must consider some short-term tax increases and loophole closings to deliver essential services and protect Washington’s most vulnerable. SJM 8002, Level the Playing Field, made a nice exit from the Senate. The vote was unanimous in support. As the session proceeds, deadlines occur closer together and create more frenzied and, hopefully, strategic advocacy. The Elephant in the Living Room In November, all 98 Representatives and a third to a half of the Senators will be up for reelection. A handful of these members will opt not to run for another term, though most will likely wish to return. Some will be voted out. All elections are important, but many would argue this year’s election, including Congressional midterms, is one of the most consequential in history. Messaging by the parties is one of the goals of the short, election year session. The Democrats, as the majority party, must show they know how to govern. The Minority party, the Republicans, will argue that the Democrats’ policy and budget priorities don’t represent the will of the people. Let’s examine two examples of how this might play out. The Millionaires' Tax The proposed Millionaires' Tax, in its form as of this writing, has wide Democratic support in the Legislature. The bill will change as it proceeds through the Senate and the House. The bill would levy a tax on incomes greater than $1 million per annum. It would be collected beginning in 2028 and bring in about $3.5 billion a year, affecting about 30,000 taxpayers. The bill also provides some tax relief from the B&O tax to small businesses. Tax proceeds would flow to cities and counties to help pay for public defense, K-12 schools, human services, and other state agencies. The Democrats and proponents pitch the Millionaires' Tax as fair. It would right-size our upside-down tax code, where lower-income people pay a greater percentage of their dollars on taxes than rich people do. The Repubicans argue that the proposed tax ignores the will of the people who have rejected proposed income taxes in the past. The current bill has an emergency clause which would likely exempt it from a referendum to repeal it in November. Opponents could still mount a campaign to place an initiative on the November ballot to repeal the measure. Terrible, No-Good Initiatives to the Legislature IL26-001, another Brian Heywood and Let’s Go Washington effort, would reverse the student and school protections the Legislature added last year to the so-called “Parents’ Bill of Rights.” The new initiative would allow parents to opt their kids out of academic activities that address sexuality, religion, mental health, and other topics. This initiative threatens the safety of our kids. With the release of private records, students who may be LGBTQ+ would be in peril from unsupportive families, putting them at risk of abuse, mental health crises, etc. Students have a right to learn in a safe environment and seek help without fear of exposure. IL26-238 would prohibit transgender girls, or anyone assigned male at birth, from participating with cisgender girls in athletics at K-12 schools. In addition, the initiative would require girls to submit documentation of their assigned sex at birth as part of a physical exam to play on these teams. We are vehemently opposed to these initiatives. PSARA conducted a “decline to sign” campaign. Unfortunately, the initiatives garnered the requisite number of signatures. The Legislature has declined to hear the initiatives so they will go directly to a vote of the people in November. Republicans argued that the Democrats should have heard the initiatives and have sponsored their own informal listening sessions. Final Words Time will tell how voters receive the messages. PSARA will work with allies to defeat the harmful Heywood initiatives, as well as protect the Millionaires Tax from repeal should it pass into law this session. Pam Crone is a retired lobbyist and the Chair of PSARA's Government Relations Committee < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents September 2025 What Do People in the US think About Climate Change? Peter Harris What do people in the US think about climate change? The large majority of people in the US see global warming and want the government to act. This holds across the country, in all states, even those run by Republicans. This has been shown for years in surveys conducted by the Climate Change Communication program at George Mason University and Yale, easily found online. This holds everywhere. A globe- spanning survey by the 89% Project of international newsrooms showed that the very large majority of people in all nations want their governments to do more to fight global warming. The 74% in the US is a lower percentage than almost every other nation. How much are people aware of these opinions? Why does this matter? People who care about global warming tend to think others don’t care. This is part of what prevents climate action. People are more willing to act when they see that others care. Per the 89% Project: “We’re sitting on an enormous potential climate movement...It’s latent. It hasn’t been activated or catalyzed. But when you break through these perception gaps, you help people under- stand that they’re not alone...Making people aware of this would help a lot and bring hope. [A lot] of people are self-censoring and not fighting or voting [for climate action] because they think that their ideas are not in the zeitgeist.” The same holds for politicians. Elected officials greatly underestimate the number of constituents who care about global warming. “You might think their political antennas are finely tuned to public opinion, but they are not – sometimes wildly underestimating public views. . . If we can make politicians more aware of what the people in their country want, they mightactually act on people’s preferences.” Why does reducing climate change have a low political priority? The lack of awareness of public opinion is one reason. Another is the misinformation skillfully produced by the fossil fuel industry. A third reason may be that the environmental impacts of climate change are often confused with environmental problems we’ve addressed before. These have mainly been things we directly created and try to directly solve, often successfully. The problems can be big or small, but they are addressed case by case. In contrast, the climate change caused by humans is an indirect result of greenhouse gas emissions and is global in its impacts. The impacts are new and growing fast and have the potential to damage life on earth. There can only be a global cure. It is easy to see this as outside the scope of government action and beyond our choices in voting. The solution may be recognizing that a global cure will come from hundreds of local actions, from individuals reducing power consumption, to states and nations replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind power. State actions can be popular. The strong political support in Washington for the Climate Commitment Act is a good example. The CCA was protected by voters in soundly rejecting I-2117. It was protected again by the state legislature in a tough bud- get process. How much are people aware of these opinions? Why does this matter? First, we can share our views with friends, neighbors and colleagues. Ask them what they think about global warming. If they care, tell them you care too, and that most others agree. Second, we can share this information with all of our elected officials. This will back up the good positions many have taken, encourage more of the same, and at least stimulate some thought by those who have not supported climate action. Third, we can move from the general to here and now. When a political issue directly or indirectly affecting the climate is on the table, tell the decision makers how many of their constituents want action on global warming. Use the data. Fourth, we can repeat this in next year’s elections. Tell all state and federal candidates the majority view of their constituents and ask for their positions on any climate actions at hand. Publish their responses or non-responses. In all this, do not be discouraged by the federal government’s insane denial of climate change. Trump and the billionaires he serves care more about putting money into their already stuffed pockets than protecting a livable world for their own grandchildren. But the public is opening its eyes. Opinions are the result of the occasions for expressing them. Every day, each of us can add a little weight. Peter Harris is a member of PSARA's Climate and Environmental Justice Committee. < Back to Table of Contents