The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents October 2025 View From the Screen: A Review of Sorry, Baby Randy Joseph Spoilers… always spoilers. This is not a cozy film but a story wishing for comfort and protection, dreaming of cozy and safe in a world where bad things happen. Where warm knitted sweaters and blankets might really protect us. Sorry, Baby - a film written and directed by the extraordinary Eva Victor, takes place over 3 years, portraying a deep friendship between two PhD students…Agnes (played by Eva Victor) and Lydie (played by Naomi Ackie) – and how Agnes survives if not heals from this bad thing that happens to her. The story is an intense, nuanced, layered character study of Agnes during a terrible time of her life and yet it manages to mix it up with lovely and funny moments. Please don’t be afraid of the sad subject matter. Eva Victor would want us to watch it and not be afraid. It’s life – stick with her. Watch out as well for lots of interesting, relevant literary references and books being read on screen (e.g., the character Milkman from Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon; Giovonni’s Room by James Baldwin; Lolita and more! Even a clip of the movie 12 Angry Men…). Our protagonist Agnes is a star PhD candidate in the Literature Department of a small New England University who lives with her best friend in an old white clapboard house isolated in the woods. They are like 4th grade best friends – they study together, eat together, take baths together - jump up and down with joy for each other – hurt for each other – sacrifice for each other. Agnes comes home late one night not herself…clearly wrecked. Their beloved and admired mentor – novelist and Professor Preston Decker -– has sexually assaulted her. She tells Lydie the story blow by blow. Lydie listens carefully and deeply and puts her in a hot bath and listens more. The rest of the film is about sadness and survival, about healing and not ever healing – loneliness and anger and loss. About the power of love and friendship no matter what. The day after the assault Decker resigns his position and leaves town. She reports the rape to the University. They refuse to investigate because he doesn’t work there anymore. Agnes doesn’t want to call the police. She says she wants him to be a person that wouldn’t do that. If she has him arrested, he would just be a person in prison who does that. The loss of the relationship they had developed over years is profound. In one minute, she loses the person she thought was a protector, mentor, cheerleader and in his place gains a rapist. A few years later she tells a colleague that Decker must have hated her. Because if you like a person, if you respect a person then there is a certain way you treat them. Like a person. The assault from a trusted professor who encouraged her - praised her to the University always - calls her whole academic career into question. Was she really the “extraordinary” writer he said she was? Did she really deserve her PhD? After she is granted her degree, the University offers Agnes Decker’s teaching position and his very office. Although she is thrilled, she also questions whether she earned this or not. Was his recommendation just to keep her quiet? Did the school offer her the job for the same reason? Should she enjoy and prosper in the light-filled office that was formerly his or should she burn it down? Life goes on as it does. She teaches and we get a glimpse of her competency and joy in literature and the teaching of it. We see her tentative relationship with a sweet neighbor. And we see her struggle to connect and be able to picture a future with “what everyone wants.” She can’t see past the sadness. Lydie falls in love – marries and moves to another city. A serious loss. Agnes stays home. Same home. Same school. Lydie worries about Agnes. “Do you ever leave the house?” Their slightly tongue-in-cheek play continues… “Please don’t die,” she says. Agnes responds, "You please don't die." Translation: I love you so much. And in reply I love YOU so much. That never changes. One day 3 years later Agnes falls apart after a jealous colleague Natasha confronts Agnes and spews that Agnes was Decker’s favorite. That even though she, Natasha, had 5-minute sex with Decker … even so - he never read her own dissertation. Agnes drives a long way out of town, sobbing and unable to think or even breathe. She stops at a roadside sandwich shop with her windows up crying. The owner comes out – a middle-aged man with sadnesses of his own – says he knows someone with anxiety attacks and would she open the window and breathe with him please. They sit outside his shop on a curb and talk together about bad things. (One of the best scenes in the movie.) He reassures her that 3 years from a bad thing isn’t very long at all. Time does not heal all. Lydie, wife and baby come to visit Agnes. Agnes gets alone time with the baby. Her face is full of love for this baby. She tells her all the things she wished people would have said to her. She holds the baby up to her face and tells her how sorry she is that bad things will happen to her. Sorry, Baby. She hopes they won’t, but they probably will. She will be there for her, she says. She will listen and not be scared. “You can tell me any bad thought, and I will say yes, I have had that thought 10 times worse. You can tell me you want to kill yourself and I will say, yes, I know that feeling. I will be there for you baby no matter what.” Randy Joseph is a member of PSARA. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents September 2025 Rest, Recharge, Find Joy in Our PSARA Community and Resist Facism! In-Person Concert Featuring Janet Stecher, Mark Aalfs, and Peter Costantini Saturday, October 25th We are delighted to welcome back by popular demand PSARA members Janet, Mark, and Peter on October 25th from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. The concert will be held in the Beaumont Room of the Bay Vista Residential Tower on the sixth floor, 2821 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121. Appetizers and sparkling waters will be provided. Bring a dish to share if you would like. Janet, Mark, and Peter have played for us over the years and will once again lead us in song with some of our favorite tunes from the labor, peace, civil rights, and climate justice movements. Janet Stecher has been a figure in topical music in Seattle through her participation in the singing group Shays’ Rebellion, and in the duo Rebel Voices, with Susan Lewis. She conduct- ed the Seattle Labor Chorus since its founding in 1997 to 2019. She was also a longtime Board Member of the Pacific Northwest Labor History Association. Janet was a member of Musicians Local 76-493, and a recipient of the Joe Hill Award, granted by the Labor Heritage Foundation of Washington, DC. The award, named after labor organizer and songwriter Joe Hill, is a lifetime achievement award for persons who have contributed to the successful integration of arts and culture in the labor movement. It is granted to persons based on their dedication, participation, and promotion of labor, labor arts, culture, organizing, and/or history. Previous recipients include artists Pete Seeger, Utah Phillips, Anne Feeney, and labor organizer Cesar Chavez. Mark was active in the late 1970s, volunteering to support the United Farmworkers. He spent four decades working in the energy industry, managing green power and green building programs. His greatest satisfaction has been working with the large community of energy efficiency and renewable energy workers and citizens of the Pacific Northwest to achieve historic levels of energy efficiency and renewable energy acquisition. For Mark, music has been a part of his life, always inspiring, energizing, and encouraging others to stand together for our social fabric and democracy. Peter arrived in Seattle from the East Coast in 1973. He Joined Mark and other bright lights of the Seattle protest music scene. He spent 20 years working construction and was active in two locals of the Laborers International Union. He was a founding member of the Seattle Tenants Union and sat on the executive board of the National Tenants Union. Peter spent most of his life involved with the immigrant justice movement, spent 20 years in the software industry, and at the same time was a journalist producing several specials on Mexico and Nicaragua for MSNBC News and later for Inter Press Service, a Roma-based non-profit newswire. We are joyful our PSARA family can be together again to sing along with Janet, Peter, and Mark and recharge ourselves to continue our fight against fascism. For more information, watch for PSARA email updates. If you don't get regular emails from PSARA, please email organizer@psara.org to get on our email list. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents February 2026 Why Responsible Investing Matters for Retirees—and Our Future Laila Salib For retirees, few things matter more than stability: secure pensions, reliable Social Security and Medicare, and an economy healthy enough to support future generations. These goals are directly connected to how our public funds are invested—and they can be undermined by investments in harmful industries. The Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) currently invests in dozens of companies whose practices pose risks to environmental health, workers’ rights, human rights, and long-term public well-being. Investments in the “war economy” also strengthen corporations that lobby Congress for ever-larger Pentagon budgets. The result is a vicious cycle: war spending grows, social programs shrink, and retirees pay the price. Large weapons manufacturers illustrate the problem clearly. Beyond producing instruments of war, these companies have caused significant environmental harm. In the early 2000s, Northrop Grumman alone was linked to more than 20 EPA Superfund sites. Weapons production is resource-intensive, carbon-heavy, and often exempt from environmental standards applied to other industries. The resulting toxic waste, groundwater contamination, and long-term health risks raise public healthcare costs and strain Medicare and other social supports. Labor practices are another concern. Despite receiving billions in public contracts, major weapons manufacturers have histories of union-busting, outsourcing, and wage suppression. A 2020 Government Accountability Office report found that more than 700 defense contractors were cited for willful or repeated safety, health, or fair-labor violations between 2015 and 2019. Weak labor standards erode the economic foundation that Social Security and Medicare depend upon. These corporations also wield enormous political influence. Weapons manufacturers rank among the most powerful lobbying forces in Congress, helping sustain rising military budgets even as lawmakers claim there is “not enough money” for Social Security, Medicare, affordable housing, or elder care. Every dollar unnecessarily spent on weapons is a dollar not invested in the well-being of seniors, families, and communities at home. International conflicts may feel distant, but investment decisions connect us directly to their consequences. For more than two years, Palestinians have endured devastating civilian harm and displacement. Over the past two years alone, more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 169,000 injured in Gaza. The human costs of investments in companies tied to serious human-rights violations and complicit in genocide are real—and these reverberate here at home. Technologies developed and tested in military contexts abroad, such as mass surveillance and predictive policing tools, are increasingly used by US agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For example, ICE contracts with Palantir, a company whose software is used with impunity by the Israeli military against civilians. What is deployed overseas does not stay overseas. The effects on our communities are devastating. Washington for Peace and Justice (WA4PJ), alongside Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), is asking pension holders to join the “Cut Ties with Genocide” coalition. Advocates can learn more or sign on at cut-ties.org . WA4PJ and JVP are also supporting anticipated legislation by Representative Farivar that would require WSIB to adopt a responsible investment frame-work—one that weighs environmental damage, labor practices, and social risk alongside financial returns. This approach does not sacrifice performance; research consistently shows that responsible investing can reduce long-term risk and improve stability in funds. As Jeff Johnson noted in last month’s PSARA newsletter, “when a respected fund like WSIB shifts away from harmful investments, it sends a powerful signal to other institutional investors." You can learn more and organizations can sign on at futures-wa.org . Retirees understand better than most that long-term thinking matters. Supporting responsible investment standards is a practical, fiscally sound step toward protecting pensions, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and leaving a healthier, more stable world for generations to come. For these reasons, supporting this future bill is not only an ethical choice—it is a smart investment in our collective future. Laila Saliba is Treasurer of the PSARA Education Fund and an activist with Washington for Peace and Justice, in coalition with Jewish Voice for Peace. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents October 2025 Sanders and Wyden Introduce “Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act” Steve Kofahl Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden and Senate Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy Ranking Member Bernie Sanders introduced this legislation on September 10. A bill number is not yet assigned. They were joined by 28 original Senate co-sponsors, including Senator Murray, none of them Republicans. Senator Cantwell (Finance Committee) has not yet signed-on, so please give her office a call. The legislation is endorsed by Social Security Works; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Alliance for Retired Americans; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; and 7 other organizations. The 40-page bill is designed to reverse staff and service cuts at the Social Security Administration (SSA), and respond to Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) activity at the SSA, thereby making it much easier for the public to receive their earned benefits, and protecting sensitive personal information. It consists of 12 sections. Section 1 states that the bill would amend the Social Security Act to permanently appropriate funding for the administrative expenses of the SSA, and for other purposes. Section 2 exempts the SSA from the jurisdiction of DOGE and certain Trump executive orders. Section 3 prohibits access to beneficiary data systems by political appointees and special government employees, except for those appointed to or employed by the SSA. Violators can be subject to criminal and civil penalties. The Comptroller of the U.S. is tasked with reporting to the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees. Section 4 requires consent of SSA employees for transfers from the competitive civil service to excepted (at-will) employment. It requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to consent to such transfers, and to report to Congress. Section 5 prohibits living individuals from being added to SSA’s Death Master File. Section 6 prohibits SSA from reducing the numbers of field offices and hearing offices below the January 1, 2025 numbers. SSA must maintain meaningful and efficient access to live toll-free number agents. Staff- ing reductions below 2024 levels are prohibited. Section 7 re-establishes SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity; the Office of Transformation; and the Office of Analytics, Review, and Oversight. Section 8 permanently funds SSA administration of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and parts of Medicare at the level of 1.2% of Social Security benefits payable per year. It excludes benefit and administrative costs from discretionary spending caps and the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. Section 9 provides for up to $2 billion in Treasury funds not otherwise appropriated to be devoted to increasing awareness of SSI eligibility for disabled children, reducing disability claims and appeals backlogs, improving SSA technology and infrastructure, and offering an online SSI application. Section 10 reduces overpayment withholding to 10% of a monthly benefit for overpayment decisions made after March 25, 2024. Section 11 provides that states may receive payments from the SSA Commissioner to protect the legal rights of disabled applicants and recipients. Section 12 establishes at least 10 annual Social Security Assistance and Representation Grants over the next 5 years to assist applicants and benefit recipients. Steve Kofahl is a retired President of AFGE 3937, representing Social Security workers, and a member of PSARA's Ecutive Board < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents October 2025 A Fake Drug War Against Venezuela Cindy Domingo In less than a month, three boats off the coast of Venezuela have purportedly been bombed by US naval forces now stationed off the coast of Venezuela. The first boat sank on September 2, allegedly carried eleven people, and it was unclear whether any survived. Reports in the media suggested that the bombing may have been an artificial intelligence film as well as questions whether the boat may not have been a drug smuggling operation since high speed drug boats carry few passengers in order to carry more drugs. The story quickly left the media pages until the latest boat sinkings in mid-September. These boat bombings have followed a heightened build-up towards war against Venezuela since August of this year. On August 7, the bounty for the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro increased from $25 million to $50 million, with US Attorney General Pam Bondi accusing Maduro of collaborating with foreign terrorist organizations to smuggle drugs into the US. It was during the first Trump administration in 2020 that a bounty was placed on Maduro for $15 million and then in January 2025 it was raised to $25 million. On August 8, the US military deployed eight warships, 1,200 missiles, 10 F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear submarine off the coast of Venezuela and some 4,500 military personnel including 2,200 Marines and amphibious assault crews. These moves were followed by the bombings of the small boats. In addition to Maduro’s bounty, increased financial sanctions, lesser bounty rewards and travel visa restrictions have been levied against others in Maduro’s administration and Venezuelan state oil and transportation officials. These provocations under the guise of a drug war come even as there is little evidence that Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro are involved in any drug smuggling. Juan Gonzalez, former senior director for the Western Hemisphere at the US National Security Council, has stated clearly that there is no credible evidence that Maduro directs any narco-gangs. Furthermore, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2025 report notes that only 5% of drugs going to the US pass through Venezuela; that in fact the country has consolidated its status as a territory free from coca leaf cultivation or drug production, as well as free from international criminal cartels. Yet Trump continues to push the narrative that Maduro is the head of a cartel called “Cartel of the Suns” and the attack on Venezuela is part of his War on Drugs. Trump’s real purpose is “regime change” in Venezuela, a strategy that was implemented in 2019 when Trump and other countries proclaimed Juan Guido as President of Venezuela even though not one person in Venezuela voted him into office and Maduro had won in the national presidential elections. And the real reason for regime change is the US wants control of Venezuela’s oil resources, the largest deposit of oil in one country in the world. Venezuela’s oil resources have been a lifeline to Cuba and lays the basis for important trade with China and Russia. The US war against Venezuela has been met with resistance in and outside Venezuela. In response to the warships, Maduro mobilized Venezuela’s popular militia that reportedly counts for 4.5 million members with its purpose to defend the country’s sovereignty. On September 1, Maduro was quoted by Al Jazeera that the US is “seeking a regime change through military threat…Venezuela is confronting the biggest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years…If Venezuela is attacked, we would immediately move to armed struggle in defense of our territory.” Maduro continued to state that he would declare Venezuela “a Republic in arms.” The September 1 issue of Venezuelan newspaper Ultimas Noticias reports that governments of 80 nations have repudiated the presence of US warships in the Caribbean and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), an alliance of 33 countries, convened an emergency session to address the crisis. The 10 countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA-TCP) have unanimously condemned the US deployments. The Presidents of Mexico, Columbia and Brazil have been outspoken about the US military aggression as well as they know they are also targets of Trump’s manufactured War on Drugs and plans for regime change. Cindy Domingo is PSARA's Co-VP of Outreach and a veteran activist with LELO (Legacy of Equality, Leadreship, organizing), APALA (Asian Pacific Ameri- can Labor Alliance), and Standing for Democracy. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents June 2025 Chaos Monkey Goes After the Federal Reserve Michael Righi Trump wants lower interest rates. Probably so he and his family can borrow cheap money to pump up the value of their crypto coins, then dump them and leave ordinary investors with the losses. Maybe he needs money to build a golf course in Dubai. Or wait, maybe that’s going to be a “gift.” So call me cynical. He is also worried that his tariff chaos is going to slow production and the economy. Lower interest rates might encourage more spending and support the economy he is effectively tanking. Trump the autocrat wants the same power over interest rates that he has over tariffs. So he is threatening the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. Firing Powell would be illegal; his term is not up, but this is Trump, right? And the Federal Reserve system was created to function independently of the president and Congress, on purpose, supposedly to insulate the Fed from political pressure. The Fed was initially created in 1913 to stop the financial crises private banks kept causing. Bankers would make riskier and riskier loans to pump up profit, some loans would go bad, banks would collapse and production and jobs would disappear. The Fed, once created, then lent money to bail the banks (and depositors) out, and prevent depressions. How to Make Money That is a crucial understanding – the Federal Reserve Bank creates money, out of thin air. You write a check, you draw down your account. The Fed writes a check by changing some numbers on a computer – only based on their authority as the country’s central bank. The Fed works through the private banking system. The Fed buys financial assets, Treasury bonds, or lately even mortgage-backed securities. That money winds up in the banking system, enabling banks to make loans. That’s more money in the economy. So the Fed enables banks to create our money supply. The Humphrey-Hawkins law passed by Congress mandates that the Fed keep both inflation and unemployment low. The Fed does this by controlling short-term interest rates. Those are often conflicting goals. Low interest rates (“easy money”) encourage borrowing and spending and so more jobs. But that also allows businesses to raise prices. High interest rates (“tight money”) have the opposite effect, slowing the economy. This all sounds technical and value- neutral. That’s what the Fed and Wall Street and financial elites want us to think, that Fed policy is apolitical and technocratic. Tell that to homeowners who lost their homes in the 2008 financial crisis while the Fed bailed out big insurance and bank corporations. Or to cardholders and small businesses now as the Powell Fed allows Capital One and Dis- cover to merge and raise their charges. The Fed Is Not Independent The Fed is run by bankers and Wall Street financiers, and influenced by what the corporate elite wants. High interest rates protect the assets of the financial elite from inflation, reducing their value. High rates also keep the economy from creating jobs, because then workers’ wages and willingness to organize might interfere with corporate profit. But financial crisis might call for extended periods of low interest rates, to keep Wall Street afloat, as after 2008. As wages have stagnated or fallen for decades, low rates also encouraged families to run up debt to maintain living standards. Whatever the capitalists in power need, the Fed tries to provide. Its power is relatively easy to access for the wealthy, easier than going through the somewhat more democratic legislative process. With Trump going after him, it is tempting to defend Powell and the Fed. That just puts us back into the space of bad choices. Neither represents what the working class needs. The Fed itself is soon likely to face both inflation and unemployment, a result of Trumpian chaos and uncertainty. If leaving it to the Fed is not the answer, then what is? That also should be up for discussion. There are ideas out there. Regional and local public banks could loan money for public infrastructure, such as transit and clean energy. Postal banking would enable those shut out of banks to borrow and make transactions. Michael Righi is a retired economics professor and a member of the Retiree Advocate Editorial Board. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents December 2025 How the Trump Administration Is Changing Nonprofit Organizations: Chaos to Follow Katie Harris Did you know that, in the Trump regime, up now means down? That’s right; Trump’s administration is issuing guidance and executive orders that turn the nonprofit sector on its head. Existing laws are being reverse engineered to make it discriminatory to reverse discrimination. Organizations working to reverse inequities and injustice are scrambling to understand how they’re affected, and how to position themselves to avoid nuisance complaints and lawsuits. Advocacy and service organizations will have to recast how they represent their work, hiring, and programming. But first, what, exactly, are executive orders and guidance? Executive orders are directives, signed by the president, that have the force of law. They can be nullified by the courts or modified through legislation, but they remain in effect until they are rescinded by a president or expire on a specified date. Trump has issued hundreds. For handy reference, the National Council of Nonprofits has published a chart of executive orders with sizable sector impacts. Organizations centering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); immigrant justice; health care; envirormental justice; LGBTQ+; and civic access are among those hardest hit. Unlike executive orders, official guidance does not have the force of law. However, guidance from Attorney General Pam Bondi has a huge impact on organizations. Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination redefines how the federal government considers DEI. Centering the interests of a specific population is now discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic. The Guidance maintains that programs that “separate or restrict access based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics…generally violate federal law by creating unequal treatment or reinforcing stereotypes, regardless of the stated goal.” But lest we assume consistency matters, “failing to maintain sex-separated athletic competitions and intimate spaces can also violate federal law.” Therefore, “organizations should affirm sex-based boundaries rooted in biological differences.” The assaults on organizations are mind-boggling in scope and very destabilizing. Among the most impacted: Race-based scholarships and program participation; Preferential hiring or promotion; Access to facilities or resources based on race, ethnicity, income level or census tract. Language to serve as proxies for “preferential treatment” is explicit in Bondi’s Guidance . Cultural competence, lived experience and diversity statements are cited as examples of proxies. Instead, organizations are supposed to be “merit-based.” In other words, the protected class is now those who benefit from the “affirmative action of generational wealth,” as Michelle Obama aptly put it. The Department of Justice, alone, canceled 373 grants, totaling $500 million, affecting 221 organizations. These grants had been approved by Congress, which sets policy through its power of the purse. Eliminating these grants puts the president’s actions at odds with Congressional intent. But, with this administration, that’s the point. The implications are huge. Government grant cycles have been canceled. Foundations have redirected their grants to maintain the operations of vital organizations under sustained assault. Legal service organizations are deluged by preparing legal challenges to fight these orders. Nonprofits must also expect nuisance complaints and lawsuits requiring defense, intended to divert resources away from programming. One tool will be scrutiny of IRS Form 990, the detailed nonprofit tax filing, which anyone may inspect online. (Religious congregations are exempt from public scrutiny). Ongoing foci in the 990 for right-wing trolls include: Using contractors in lieu of staff. Expect increased scrutiny here. The IRS criteria are clearly spelled out; Fundraising costs that appear disproportionately high, relative to the budget; Advocacy activities that might constitute lobbying in excess of thresholds; Lack of conflict of interest and whistleblower policies; Absence of financial policies and procedures. Meeting minutes, annual reports and job announcements will also face scrutiny. One growing vulnerability: agencies record meeting minutes using Zoom instead of taking written minutes. It is very tempting, but don’t do it. People say all sorts of things in meetings that shouldn’t be captured for all time. Expect meeting minutes to be requested with complaints. Referring to a contractor as a deputy director in a recorded board meeting, for example, could leave an organization very vulnerable. We can expect complaints around phrasing of job postings and program eligibility. Any public-facing document is a potential avenue of exposure for an organization. To read the Attorney General’s memo, search for Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination. A tool kit for protecting nonprofits from scurrilous attacks is Nonprofit Toolkit: Resources for Organizations Facing Government Investigations . A New York Times article about what’s coming is "You May Not Be Trump’s Target This Time, but You Could Be Next." Katie Harris is the Retiree Advocate's Copy Editor. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents July 2026 MAHA Tracker Katie Harris Movements make for strange bedfellows, all the more so since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), a landmark Supreme Court decision that changed the calculus of campaign finance. In that 5 - 4 decision, the Court determined that restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since then, corporations have had a field day in terms of influencing elections and legislation, but who is doing the influencing can be difficult to suss out. These relationships are often hard to discern because corporations and individuals create entities that obscure connections between the rich and powerful and the laws and regulations they seek to put in place. An emerging example of this is the MAHA movement, Make America Healthy Again. Take the title; who wouldn’t support making America healthy? It sounds like a movement with earnest parents at the helm. But we know a few things. We know that RFK, Jr, in his misplaced role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, is its figurehead, with White House support. We also know this right wing playbook: create political action committees that appear at first glance to be independent entities; create organizations that appear to be independent entities; find movements that can be repurposed to the cause; develop messaging that appears hard to dispute on its face. A new online tracker (MAHAtracker. com) has been created to track the MAHA movement’s funding, structure and relationships. It was developed by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights ( IREHR.org ), which researches and monitors right wing movements and identifies strategies to counter their influence. The impetus for creating the tracker was the challenge in monitoring so many relationships and data points. Devin Burghart, IREHR’s director, notes, “IREHR has been monitoring the MAGA money trying to Trojan Horse anti-vaccine conspiracies in the guise of MAHA from the outset. We created the MAHA Tracker to put the data in one easy-to-access dashboard—financial info, leadership ties, legislative agenda, social media followers, and endorsements—to sound the alarm bell and defend public health.” Using original source data, IREHR identifies key patterns and relation-ships. IREHR developed the tracker to follow the money, visualize the leader-ship network, see social media growth, and identify MAHA-backed candidates. Updated each day, the tracker enables individuals and organizations to monitor key indicators of change in real time. It is a very valuable resource. With the relationships mapped out, I was then able to look up Federal Election Commission and Form 990 tax filings of some of the organizations and see how the contributions of separate organizations dovetailed to advance MAHA movement strategy. For example, the MAHA Tracker maps relationships between anti-vax groups, including those that predate the MAHA movement, and the MAHA movement. Two organizations whose leadership overlaps with MAHA PAC are Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the Autism Action Network (AAN). Children’s Health Defense, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded in 2007, remained a small organization until RFK Jr. joined its board in 2014. To build a constituency in the Black community, CHD tied its anti-vax stance to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, one of the most egregious abuses of human rights in US history, in which Black men were infected with syphilis and left untreated. CHD produced a film in 2021 called Medical Racism: the New Apartheid, predicated on false information, which warned communities of color to distrust vaccines, asserting that “the same thing that happened in the 1930s during the eugenics movement” was occurring. The Autism Action Network, a 501(C)(4) nonprofit, provided targeted support to the International African American Arts Festival to disseminate the message. Who are the organizations that contribute heavily to the MAHA movement? Among the companies the Tracker has identified, a large contributor ($500,000) to the MAHA Political Action Committee (MAHA PAC) is Botanic Tonics, LLC. The company is an online retailer of a “tonic” that promotes well-being. Its reputation is poor. Its products contain kratom, a highly addictive substance, whose potency often isn’t known by customers. A related lawsuit, filed in 2023, asserted that the primary “feel good” ingredient in the company’s “Feel Free Wellness Tonic” was kratom. Only days ago, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed related to kratom. Botanic Tonics recently sought a preliminary injunction to prevent restrictions on its distribution. The expenditures of the MAHA Alliance are also telling. For example, in October and November of 2024, the PAC contributed more than $780,000 to Donald Trump’s campaign. In the 2026 election cycle, the MAHA Tracker has calculated expenditures of $9.63 million for and against specific candidates. The MAHA Tracker is a real asset in tracking these relationships. As long as Citizens United shapes campaign finance reporting, the tracker should serve as a model for how to unpack other movements with complex, often obscure, relationships and strong ties to right wing funders, strategists and legislators. Kate Harris is the Retiree Advocate's copy editor and a member of our editorial board. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents June 2025 Social Security Attacks Continue Steve Kofahl It seems that nearly every day we learn about a disturbing new aspect of the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on Social Security, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and SSA employees. I write this on May 12, with a Washington Post piece (“The hidden ways Trump and DOGE are shutting down parts of the government”) in today’s Seattle Times. The article reveals that some SSA employees are running out of pens, paper, and printer toner because the US DOGE Service, on February 26, placed a $1 spending limit on each government-issue credit card that managers use to make purchases and pay for services. They cannot pay their phone bills, or for translation services, for example. Less than a dozen people at SSA, an agency with 1,300 work locations, are now authorized to make decisions on any purchase requests, causing lengthy backlogs and delays. How’s that for making government more efficient? Less than a week ago, Wall Street billionaire Frank Bisignano was confirmed 53-47 by the Senate to serve until January 2031 as SSA Commissioner. A self- described “DOGE person,” he was called out by the usually mild-mannered Oregon Senator Ron Wyden for lying to the Senate Finance Committee, when he denied having worked with DOGE and Trump’s Acting SSA Commissioner, Leland Dudek, for months before his confirmation. It was during this time that the SSA website crashed 3 times in 10 days, in March. Bisignano, who comes with a reputation for slashing jobs and treating workers disrespect- fully, has said that he intends to replace SSA 800-number agents with Artificial Intelligence (AI). Speaking of AI, SSA has already been utilizing it to some extent in the disability determination process. The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) has formed a task force that issued a report last month citing a number of concerns. One is the presence of bias in medical care and in medical record-keeping. How do we identify and mitigate it? NASI believes it imperative that hu- mans make the adjudicative decisions, including whether to obtain additional existing medical evidence or request a consultative exam paid for by SSA. SSA had more than 84,000 employ- ees in 1980, compared to about 50,000 today, with half as many Americans receiving benefits compared with today. Each of 1,200+ field offices had at least one SSA field representative to reach those who lived far from an office and needed a home visit, or to be served at one of the Agency’s hundreds of con- tact stations (sites like courthouses and social service agencies, most at no cost to SSA). They also made presentations to educate people about SSA programs. There are no more contact stations, and no more field representatives. With SSA having largely withdrawn from communities across our nation, it shouldn’t surprise us that lies about Social Security are believed by too many Americans. Why else would anyone agree with Elon Musk that Social Security is a 90-year Ponzi scheme, that benefits are being paid on the records of 150-year-olds, or that undocumented workers are receiving payments (they’re not!)? Incorrect payments, which include underpayments as well as overpayments, are about 1 percent of total benefits paid. Incorrect payments (which could be greatly reduced by restoring staff) and fraudulent payments are not the same thing, and there is, in fact, very little fraud. Reports of changes that affect eligibility or payment amount are received by SSA, but often go unworked for many months due to job cuts. Implementation of the Social Security Fairness Act, which restored benefits for public retirees who had been subject to Government Pension Offset or the Windfall Elimination Provision, is also being slowed by staffing losses. Nearly three mil- lion records require adjustment, but some won’t be processed for a year. Of 182,000 new applications filed by those who hadn’t applied previously because no payments were due before the law was changed, 15 percent have not been processed. The Trump administration intends to strip all civil service and union rights from about 20 percent of the SSA workforce, including the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who conduct dis- ability hearings and render decisions. That would make it easy to intimidate or remove ALJs who allegedly approve too many cases. Thankfully, we have been getting some help from the courts and others. In April, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to block DOGE from accessing the sensitive personal information in SSA records. On May 7, 15 House Republicans (none from Washington) wrote to Bisignano to express concerns about staff cuts and office closures. Two days later, another judge issued a two-week temporary restraining order blocking implementation of a February 11 executive order directing major “reorganizations” at SSA and 19 other agencies. The Administration appealed to the 9th Circuit within hours. H.R. 2550, the Protecting Ameri- ca’s Workforce Act, which would restore federal employee rights that have been stripped away, already has 220 House co-sponsors. We have a long and difficult fight on our hands, but we can and must win it. We have to pull back the curtain and reveal what’s really going on in the other Washington, reach out wherever possible to tell the story to others, and take action by attending rallies and/or calling members of Congress from both parties. Steve Kofahl is a former President of AFGE 3937, representing Social Security workers, a member of PSARA's Executive Board, and Co-Chair of PSARA's Social Security Task Force. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents September 2025 Philippines Remains Trump’s Ally Cindy Domingo While Donald Trump and his foreign policy team continue to strain relations with countries around the world, US-Philippine relations were further strengthened in the recent state visit to Washington DC by Philippine President Bong Bong Marcos in late July. The visit comes at a very important political time, as Trump’s war against China continues to escalate and the US vies for political power in the Asia Pacific region. Marcos is the first Southeast nation president to visit the US during Trump’s second term. Marcos’ close relationship is a 180-degree turn from the previous Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte. Duterte strengthened bilateral Philippine-China relations that resulted in concrete China support during the Covid-19 pandemic, increased economic trade and investments, and Chinese- funded infrastructure projects. It remains to be seen if Marcos’ friendly relations with the US will help bolster his popularity amongst the Philippine population. Midway into a six year term, Marcos’ popularity, according to the well-respected Pulse Asia March/April survey, has plummeted to 25% approval rating, 53% disapproval, and 22% no opinion/undecided. In the same survey, Marcos’ arch enemy and embattled Vice President, Sarah Duterte, received a 59% approval rating – an increased rating many believe is related to online and in-person organizing related to the opposition of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest of Rodrigo Duterte. The elder Duterte is currently being held in the ICC’s jail awaiting trial for crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and torture, as related during the period of November, 2011 through March 2019 as pertaining to Duterte’s “war on drugs.” The fallout between the Marcos and Duterte camps are important for US strategic interests in the Asia Pacific region. Since the beginning of US intervention in the Philippines in 1898, the Philippines became important because of its military positioning to that entire region. Under BB Marcos and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the US has established more US military facilities in the Philippines, including the deployment of missile systems, even though there are no more military bases there. Marcos’ pro-US stance is important for Trump’s aggressive position against China. The recent May Philippine elections reflect a divided country with a newly elected Philippine Congress mainly divided into those two camps. However, a new progressive camp has begun to emerge, breathing hope for democratic economic and political reforms in the Philippines. Led by the only opposition leader in the Senate, Senator Risa Hontiveros from the social democratic Akbayan Party, has succeeded in building a big tent that resulted in the election of three members of the Akbayan Party to the House of Representatives as well as a handful of well positioned members from the liberal and independent parties. These include former Senator Leila De Lima who was imprisoned for seven years by Rodrigo Duterte after she led a Congressional investigation around murders carried out during his war against drugs. This progressive camp has already introduced many democratic reform Congressional bills, but their footing is fragile in light of the dominance of family dynasties as represented by the Marcos and Duterte families. In the previous 19th Philippine Congress, 12 of 24 Senators, 162 of 316 Representatives and 60 of 81 governors were members of political dynasties. It is common to see in one region Congressional members, governors, and mayors from one family representing different generations and jockeying from office to office if there are term limits. The current 20th Congress is almost no different. Therefore, in such a political environment, advancing a progressive agenda still remains a serious challenge. The political dynasties may differ in region and ideology, but they are united by a common interest in pre- serving the status quo. Previous bills to dismantle the family dynasties have met with great resistance, but there is an increasing interest by a new generation of voters. Currently, Millennials and Generation Z compose 63% of the voting population in the Philippines, with the median age of the general population at 26 years of age. According to Josua Mata, Secretary General of SENTRO, a labor center that represents over 100,000 public, private, and informal sector workers, who was in Seattle recently for LELO’s Annual Dinner in June to receive an award for SENTRO workers organizing in a fac- tory making Lululemon wear, stated that the continued growth and revitalization of the Philippine labor movement is crucial to taking advantage of this current opening for progressive forces and deepening democracy in the Philippines. While Trump can continue to rely on the Marcos dynasty to carry out US interests, the next three years leading up to the Philippine Presidential elections will be crucial for US military and economic interests both in the Philippines and in the region. However, if the progressive forces led by Senator Hontiveros can gain momentum, the traditional family dynasties might be facing Hontiveros as a Presidential candidate. Cindy Domingo is one of PSARA's Co-VPs for Outreach, a member of the Retiree Advocate editorial board, and a veteran activist in LELO (Legacy of Equality, Leadership & Organizing) and APALA (Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance). < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2025 History: “Neutralize Elderly Voters” Nancy Altman Social Security is the most popular and effective program in America, and Wall Street has spent decades on a campaign to undermine the people’s faith in the system. Think we’re exaggerating? A right- wing think tank called for a “Leninist Strategy on Social Security” back in 1983. Reading it today, much of that strategy looks just like reality. In 1983, Social Security was in a real crisis. But the system’s popularity protected it from destruction, much to Wall Street’s disappointment. Wall Street sees our Social Security system as a cash cow that they can’t access. They want to get their hands on Social Security’s $2.8 trillion trust fund, which is instead invested in US Treasury Bonds. So Wall Street–funded conservative think tanks got to work, outlining a long-term strategy to chip away at the public’s confidence in Social Security. And it was extraordinarily successful. The right-wing Cato Institute published a plan in 1983 called a Leninist Strategy1, designed to “neutralize” elderly voters while continuing to undermine confidence in Social Security among the young. The strategy had two main prongs: Make younger Americans lose faith that Social Security will keep its promise to them, and create an alternative in the form of private accounts that could be gambled on the stock market, similar to 401(k)s. The strategy took a decade to be mainstreamed by the Republicans. In 1988, a presidential candidate sharing his views about Social Security appeared on the scene. Former Delaware governor Pierre S. “Pete” du Pont IV, an heir to those who had thrown money at any FDR-hater they could find, sought the Republican nomination for president and ran on a platform of privatizing Social Security. But George H. W. Bush won the Republican nomination and the election that year. As president, he showed his understanding of the program when he said, “In my budget plan, I say we’ve got to control the growth of . . . mandatory programs but set Social Security aside. It’s not a welfare program. It’s sacrosanct.” In 1994, the House of Representatives returned to Republican control for the first time in over 40 years, the first time since Eisenhower was president. The Republicans had run in support of the “Contract with America,” drafted and promoted by Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Unfortunately for those opposing Social Security, the Contract with America expressed implicit support for the program by proposing only minor modifications. However, in 1994, as the law had required since 1956, the Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed 14 members to serve on Social Security’s quadrennial advisory council. The trustees had begun to project a long term deficit in Social Security’s financing occurring somewhere more than 35 years in the future. Included in the report was an appendix, entitled “Developments Since 1983,” which addressed the causes of the projected shortfall. The appendix began by debunking the myth that the inexorable tide of aging baby boomers had anything to do with the projected deficit. The report clarified: “the fundamental ratio of beneficiaries to workers was fully taken into account in the 1983 financing provisions and, as a matter of fact, was known and taken into account well before that.” The report then explained that the shortfall resulted from a variety of factors. By the time the advisory council reported, almost 31 million workers participated in 401(k) plans, which contained assets of over $1 trillion. As the stock market went up and up in the 1990s, these arrangements became more and more popular. This was the opportunity the Leninist Strategy envisioned. More and more Americans were becoming used to private accounts for retirement income. The Cato Institute formed the Project on Social Security Privatization on August 14, 1995. A co-chairman of the project was José Pinero, the Pinochet Minister of Labor who had designed the Chilean system of private accounts. Just as supporters of private accounts had been doing since almost the moment Chile had privatized its Social Security program, Cato touted the Chilean system as a model for the United States, despite its decidedly mixed results. The new right-wing project fueled privatization talk with publications and conferences. In less than a decade, the project could proudly boast that it had “published more than forty books, articles, and reports” criticizing Social Security and advocating private accounts. During these years, Social Security produced large surpluses, as it had been projected to do when the 1977 and 1983 amendments had been enacted—but the federal deficit grew to record deficits. On March 7, 1999, the wealthy governor of Texas announced that he was forming a committee to explore a run for the presidency. Despite his limited political experience and his weaknesses as a speaker, he had one huge asset. He happened to be the son of a former president, and the two men shared the same first and last names, George Bush. Well before Bush formed his exploratory committee, he had been thinking about the presidency and had been thinking about Social Security as well. He had a long history of hostility to the program. As a student at the Harvard Business School in the early 1970s, he had railed against Social Security and other New Deal programs. In his losing bid for a congressional seat in 1978, he had ventured that “people [should] be given the chance to invest [Social Security] the way they feel.” The patience of the anti-Social Security forces seemed to have paid off. They finally had a president who seemed to see the world their way. Despite Social Security’s absence from the campaign, President Bush established a presidential commission, on May 2, 2001, to study and make recommendations about Social Security. The members consisted only of people who were dedicated to destroying Social Security’s universal promise, and it resulted in Bush’s privatization scheme. Unlike most presidential commissions, which are given broad guidelines within which to work, this commission was to be tightly constrained. Among the stipulations dictated by Bush was that the commission’s recommendations “must include individually controlled voluntary personal accounts.” It was not a commission to consider what should be done; rather, it was a commission to advise the president how to do what he had already made up his mind to do. At the same time, Bush used the ad- ministration of government to sow distrust in Social Security. Though Trustees Reports between 2001 and 2004 grew slightly more optimistic, with the projected year of exhaustion of the trust funds slightly further into the future, Social Security Administration publications became more alarmist. No longer confirming that Social Security faced “no immediate crisis,” the publications now warned that the program was “unsustainable,” and “under financed.” Most disturbing was the change in the annual statement sent to all of the 125 million workers aged 25 and over who pay into the trust funds. This statement, completely unsolicited, simply arrives in each worker’s mailbox. The 2001 statement proclaimed, “Will Social Security be there when you retire? Of course it will.” This reassurance was gone by 2002. And in 2005, the unsettling remark “Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time” was now in the mailing, just in case workers were feeling too secure. The same tactics are being used today. Republicans in Congress are systematically underfunding the Social Security Administration, forcing office closings and longer wait times to receive the world class service Americans are promised. George W. Bush set the agenda for Trump and Elon Musk: Pass a massive tax cut, then try to cut Social Security in the name of fiscal discipline. Of course, Bush’s gamble failed. But privatizers learned a lesson from that. Instead of hashing it out in public, where Social Security’s overwhelm- ing popularity protects it, Wall Street learned to sharpen their axes behind closed doors – just like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are doing right now. This isn’t a new fight – it is the same thing we have been fighting for almost a century. With our voices together, we beat Bush’s privatization scheme, we beat the neo-liberal drumbeat of President Obama’s fiscal commissions, and we’re going to beat Trump and Elon Musk. The way we win is to go on the offense. We need to EXPAND Social Security and never cut it. Nancy Altman is President of Social Security Works, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Pension Rights Center, a member of the Boards of Directors of the Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, and the Institute for America’s Future. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents September 2026 Social Security on the Ballot Steve Kofahl Candidate Trump assured voters that he would not touch Social Security. In fact, he and his appointees have man-handled it administratively in the past 18 months, removing 7,500 SSA (Social Security Administration) employees while aggressively driving the public to online self-service with unreliable AI “assistance.” As we approach the mid-term elections, it’s important to understand that crippled service delivery is not the only threat to the program. Some in Congress wish to cut benefits, in order to “save” Social Security, using the dwindling Trust Fund surplus as justification and a commission operating behind closed doors as the method. Defenders of the program, on the other hand, call for the rich to pay their fair share by scrapping the cap on earnings subject to taxation, and for increased benefits. On August 5, just nine days short of the Social Security Act’s 91st birthday, these competing alternatives were put on display at a Senate Finance Committee hearing titled “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency.” Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) stated that the 1983 Greenspan Commission “demonstrated the value of creating a forum in which policymakers could work through difficult issues and build consensus on a bipartisan basis.” He credited the 2010 Bowles-Simpson Commission recommendations as having informed subsequent discussions, despite having insufficient support for passage. The Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden (D-OR), said, “Today Republican members of this panel will claim they have the solution: an unaccountable 'commission' that will rubber stamp benefit cuts like increasing the retirement age.” He pointed out that, thanks to last year’s “Big Beautiful Bill," the Trust Fund reserves will be depleted in the last quarter of 2032, rather than in early 2033, costing them $168 billion according to the SSA Chief Actuary. His bottom line is to work on a bipartisan basis to update Social Security and require billionaires to pay their fair share of payroll and income taxes. Wyden said he wishes that the Committee was there to have a substantive debate. “Instead of talking about talking, this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view.” He stated that Democrats on the Committee had put forward their own ideas, and that through those plans Social Security can be secured indefinitely into the future without any cuts to current or future beneficiaries. Testimony by AARP Executive Vice President Nancy A. LeaMond stated, “Our message is simple, and it has two parts. First, Congress should strengthen Social Security for future generations without cutting the payments Americans have earned and are earning. Second, Congress should do this work itself - openly, transparently, and deliberatively through regular order - rather than outsourcing it to commissions or forcing it through fast-tracking procedures that restrict debate and amendments.” Later in her statement she said, “AARP wants Congress to act - sooner rather than later - and we will support members of both parties who take up that work. What we oppose is narrower, and I will say it plainly: we oppose cuts to Social Security, and we oppose processes that would obscure those cuts from the American people. If defending the benefits Americans have earned counts as impeding progress, that says more about the proposals than it does about AARP.” LeaMond went on to point out that the Greenspan Commission is no model to emulate, and that its own members acknowledged that it failed to produce a solution. It took traditional negotiations between the leaders of the two parties and the President to produce a solution that was then endorsed by the Commission and made its way through Congress under regular procedures. AARP opposes the PROMISE Act (S. 4979), the Fiscal Commission Act (S. 4012), and the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act of 2026 (H.R. 9187). A recent AARP survey revealed that 81% of older Americans (89% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans) reject the idea of cutting Social Security in order to save it. Rebecca D. Vallas, National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) CEO, presented her own views, as some of the 1,400 members of the Academy may have others. She explained the importance of retirement and disability insurance protections to Americans, from both political parties and among Independents. Vallas noted an unusual level of agreement among 2,200 Americans ages 21 and over who were surveyed through a partnership of NASI, AARP, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Eighty-five percent want to see Congress prevent cuts or increase benefits even if doing so requires raising taxes on some or all Americans. Scrapping the cap ($184,500 in 2026) was the single most popular option tested in the entire survey. She urged consideration be given to taxing pass-through and investment income, as provided in The Social Security and Medicare Fair Share Act ( S. 1174). The policy package preferred by 82% of respondents even supports a slight, gradual increase in the contribution rate for everyone, from 6.2% to 7.2%, along with scrapping the cap. Steve Kofahl is a retired president of AFGE 3937, representing Social Security workers, and the Co-Chair of PSARA's Social Security task force. < Back to Table of Contents