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 May 2025 It’s A Stew: Part 2 the Almost Final 2025 Legislative Report Pam Crone Long sessions are just that… long. As of this writing, 10 days remain in the 2025 legislative session. Cut-offs have come and gone, and we are now in the final stretch. So, what’s not left to do, rather than what is? The Elephant in the Room In short, Washington faces a daunting revenue deficit of $15–$16 billion over the next four years. Legislators have one constitutional duty during odd numbered years: to pass a budget for the state’s operations over the two-year cycle. Everything else is “fluff,” so to speak. That’s not to say policy doesn’t matter – it does. But without the revenue to run government operations, there will be no new programs. And in this cycle, we could see significant cuts to essential services. Revenue bills were not subject to the April 16 cut-off because they are considered NTIB – “necessary to implement the budget.” Over the next 10 days, both chambers will hear and vote on a package of bills aimed at easing the budget shortfall. The final mix of cuts and new revenue that both the House and Senate can agree on – and that Governor Ferguson will sign – is still uncertain. Governor Ferguson first ruled out a wealth tax, and with business lobbying hard against a payroll tax, House and Senate budget leaders went back to the drawing board and cobbled together a new set of taxes. As of this writing, the governor finds that plan “too risky.” He didn’t rule out all progressive revenue options, but finding enough revenue to offset the deepest cuts remains a daunting task. As of April 18, a resolution has yet to emerge, so ending on time April 27 is not a slam-dunk. The 2025 Washington State legislative session has unfolded in a bleak national context. The federal landscape is in disarray, and we are only four months into this administration. I won’t rehash the endless stream of “terribles.” We are all acutely aware of the federal government’s ongoing assaults on people, the environment, and the rule of law. Our state leaders don’t have a crystal ball. Whatever budget they finalize in these closing days won’t fully capture the effects of the broader federal economic and social turmoil – on-again, off-again tariffs; mass layoffs; and more. And then there are the looming Medicaid cuts. In Washington State, 1.8 million residents rely on Medicaid for health care– ourselves, our families, our neighbors. In fiscal year 2023, the state received $12.5 billion in federal Medicaid funding. If that funding disappears, the state cannot close the gap. The suffering will be immense. This is not a rosy picture. We are organizing now to advocate with our federal congressional delegation to stop these cuts. If they go through, the state legislature may have to reconvene in a special session to address the budget crisis. Some Wins Despite the tough climate, we’ve made good progress on our legislative priorities. Our April midway report outlined the bills still alive – and a few that didn’t make it. A high priority was SJM 8002, Protecting Medicare by Leveling the Playing Field. It did not make It out of the second house by cut-off April 16, but will be reintroduced, hopefully, in 2026. It goes back to the Senate where it must be passed again. The following PSARA priority bills passed both houses and are big wins: SJM 8004 – Supporting efforts to advance Universal Healthcare SB 5291 – Strengthening and protecting WA Cares HB 1491 – Creating affordable housing near transit HB 1213 – Extending job protection in the Family & Medical Leave program SB 5041 – Extending unemployment benefits to striking workers SB 5284 – Reducing plastic waste through better solid waste management SJM 8004 bypasses the Governor’s Office and is transmitted directly to Congress, the President, and the Secre- taries of Labor and Health and Human Services. The other bills are headed to Governor Ferguson. He can sign them, veto them, or let them pass into law without a signature. Depending on when the bills land on his desk, he has either 5 or 20 days to act. Note: He has section veto power on these bills, un- like the line-item veto he holds for the budget. HB 1217, the rent stabilization bill, is still in limbo as of this writing. Originally a House bill, it was significantly weakened in the Senate. The House is expected to reject those amendments, sending the bill to a conference committee. The conference committee, made up of Senators and Representatives, will hash out a compromise for an up or down vote by the two chambers. We are hoping for a strong bill that keeps renters housed by stabilizing rent increases. 2026 Revival Bills that didn’t make it this year can be reintroduced during the 2026 short session (60 days). They’ll retain the same bill numbers and hopefully see better results. As always, stay tuned. Pam Crone is a retired lobbyist and Chair of PSARA's Government Relations Committee (GRC). < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents September 2025 We Remember Michael Righi Mike Andrew, Karen Richter, Robby Stern Michael Righi, member of the Retiree Advocate Editorial Board, veteran activist, and retired economics professor, died in July. His passing is a huge loss for PSARA and the Retiree Advocate, and a person- al loss for his many friends in and out of PSARA. PSARA sends our deepest condo- lences to Bobby Righi, an equally great activist, writer, and friend. Below, some PSARA leaders who worked closely with Michael share memories of him. Mike Andrew: I don’t remember when I met Michael Righi. He was the kind of person who, once you talked to him a couple of times, you felt like you’d always known him. It may have been in 2012, when I first started working for PSARA, or it may have been before that, in the context of economic or climate justice organizing. He was passionate about both. In any case I was delighted to find out that we shared a political pre-history in the New Communist movement in the 1970s. Michael was wicked smart, but not a show-off about it. He was wickedly funny too. And he was more than willing to turn his droll sense of humor against billionaires and the politicians who abetted them. “Every billionaire is a policy failure,” was one of his favorite taglines. As editor of the Retiree Advocate, I appreciated his ability to take complex economic issues and explain them in simple – but not simplistic – terms any reader could understand. And all in 750 words! I know our readers appreciated it too, because every one of them, without exception, when they heard that he’d died, exclaimed “Oh no! What will we do without his articles?” I also appreciated the fact that Michael – and Bobby too – would pitch in to help with whatever was needed. He could explain cryptocurrency, carry a banner in a march, set up chairs for an event, or stick mailing labels on the latest issue of the Retiree Advocate . He was completely selfless that way. I last saw Michael at Tim Wheeler’s book reading on July 26. I was expecting to see him again a few days later to plan the new issue of the Retiree Advocate. It didn’t work out that way. I’ll miss him. Karen Richter: Michael was a generous and caring person and great friend. His articles in the Advocate helped so many of us understand the complexities of economic justice issues. He had a great sense of humor and was a talented cook. He made the best pizza and paella I ever tasted. Michael was always there when we had rallies, demonstrations, and marches no matter what. He always showed up to help with everything – our mailing parties, membership meeting, concerts you name it he was there. He was one of the best people I've ever known. I will miss him dearly. Robby Stern: Michael was one of the most decent and thoughtful men I have ever known. He was a good and beloved man with an outstanding sense of humor. He played a very important role in our collective work and was someone I was always glad to see and spend time with. As a member of the Retiree Advocate Editorial Board, his good humor, insights, and compassion were consistently present in our deliberations. He helped to make the meetings fun and productive and was a very significant part of creating a quality newsletter month after month. He and Bobby have been an amazing couple and served as a model of lifetime progressive activism. It was always a delight to interact with the two of them at street actions, fundraising events, PSARA meetings and other events supporting the movement for social and economic justice. Michael was both incredibly funny and at the same time determined to provide his good thinking on what we could do in that moment in the fight to create a more just world. As a progressive economist, his monthly articles in the Retiree Advocate were clear and easily readable, not an easy thing to do when discussing economic issues. He helped many of us better understand what forces were at work in our economy that sharply tilts in favor of the very rich and powerful and the avaricious multinational corporations. He also wrote with underlying compassion about how it should be as opposed to how it is. He was an ever-present activist in our efforts to change how the economy works as well as fighting for worker, climate, racial, and gender justice. We will miss Michael enormously and will honor him by carrying on the work he chose as his lifetime mission. Michael will live on in our hearts, our memories, and our thinking about what we should do next to resist autocracy and fascism and build a better world. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents December 2025 Election 2025: So Many Questions Mike Andrew There's something happening here But what it is ain't exactly clear Buffalo Springfield, For What It’s Worth When Stephen Stills wrote those words in 1966, he was thinking of teenagers re- belling on Sunset Strip. But we could say the same thing about the 2025 elections. Sure, let’s celebrate – the election was a stunning repudiation of Trumpism. In some places it also seems to be an embrace of progressive people-centered politics. But, in my opinion, the results are deeply contradictory. In the headline news of the night, Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York. In Seattle, Katie Wilson – called a “white, female Mamdani” by the Daily Mail – was also elected. In Tacoma too, Anders Ibsen beat a pro-business incumbent on promises of more people-oriented government. Democratic Party leaders are claiming the election as a huge victory and a harbinger of even greater success in the mid-term elections next year. Their lips to the voters’ ears. But the Democratic Party is still…well, the Democratic Party. As Bernie Sanders told The Nation (November 2025 issue): “[T]he Democratic Party (at its top) is mostly made up of folks who have money and consultants, and politicians who work with folks who have money and consultants…They spend an enormous amount of time raising money…They’re not about to take on the people who provide them with the money.” At the same time that Mamdani and Wilson were elected, two mainstream Democrats – one of them a former CIA agent – were elected governors of Virginia and New Jersey. Even in New York City, some Democratic Party regulars – having refused to endorse Mamdani when he won the party’s primary – distanced themselves even further from him after his electoral victory. In fact, The Staten Island and Queens Democratic Committees explicitly unendorsed him after the November 5 final election. “We have a lot of Democrats in Queens who do not support Mamdani,” the local Democratic Party Chair told MSN. “There is a reckoning occurring in the Democratic Party. There is a growing concern that socialism is hijacking the Democratic Party.” Bernie Sanders – who still draws huge, enthusiastic crowds at his rallies – tried twice and failed twice to turn the Democratic Party into a vehicle for progressive politics. Was he merely ahead of his time? Or are the institutional barriers that prevented Bernie from taking leadership of the Democratic Party still in place? Mamdani won election running against particularly loathsome opponents – an incumbent mayor who was saved from federal indictment only by cozying up to Donald Trump; a former governor forced to resign after multiple sexual harassment allegations; and the founder of a racist vigilante organization. Can that victory be replicated in other places under other circumstances and against respectable opponents? Katie Wilson’s victory in Seattle against mainstream Democrat Bruce Harrell suggests it can. But two examples don’t prove the case. Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind In some ways, the split between pro and anti-Mamdani forces reflects a generational divide in the Democratic Party and among the party’s varied constituencies. Remember the four-and-a-half-month tenure of 25-year-old David Hogg as Vice Chair of the DNC? Hogg was driven out of his seat by old guard Democratic Party operatives, who objected to his plans to primary do-nothing Democratic incumbents with younger, bolder, and more aggressive candidates. The Mamdani and Wilson campaigns raise the same issues. What’s the value of Democratic incumbents if they can’t or won’t deliver on their party’s promises? After the election, “affordability” became the new buzz word for Democrats. Nice slogan, but what does it mean? For Mamdani it means publicly-owned grocery stores, a rent freeze, and $30 an hour minimum wage. For Wilson it means spending $1 billion on social housing and preventing private equity firms from buying up vacant homes. For young workers who find it less and less possible to live in New York or Seattle, these are practical measures that will help them sustain themselves and their families. What does “affordability” mean to Chuck Schumer? And if it doesn’t mean something concrete to him and his brand of Democrats, if it’s just the slogan du jour, maybe it’s time for all of them to step aside in favor of younger, bolder, and more aggressive candidates. We can and we should celebrate the election of 2025. But we should also be prepared for even more political struggles ahead. < 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 December 2025 PSARA Education Fund End-of-Year Donations What a year it has been, and 2026 is shaping up to be even more challenging for so many of us. As you think about end-of-year giving, please consider donating to the PSARA Education Fund. The Ed Fund, a 501c3 nonprofit organization, produces the Retiree Advocate every month and is filled with information you won’t find anywhere else. The educational work we do has had a national impact. For more details on our work this past year, please read Robby Stern’s article on the front page of the November, 2025 Advocate . You can donate by either mailing a check to the PSARA Education Fund, 321 16th Ave South, Seattle, WA 98144, or click here to donate from our webpage , and donate to the Education Fund. If you are doing a required minimum distribution from your retirement account, please remember us. Thank you for your membership and your support! < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents March 2025 Mexico: Unequal Trade and Trump’s Nonsense Michael Righi What is Trump thinking with all this back-and-forthing on tariffs? Is it really linked to fentanyl labs and immigrants? Is there a hidden agenda? The idea of Trump “thinking,” rather than just blustering and bullying, may be a bit of a stretch. But let’s try to figure some things out. Trump has, of course, threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada. As he often does, he claimed victory whenMexico moved some troops toward the border, which they were always planning to do. So the tariffs are on pause. Trump backed off. Trump’s justifications for higher tariffs wander all over the place. Besides using them to supposedly stop the flow of drugsand migrants, he claims countries are selling us too much stuff, stuff that could be made in the US. The US does have a trade deficit with Mexico, which has resulted from the signing of the North American Free TradeAgreement in 1994. This allowed US corporations, ever in search of cheaper resources, less regulation, and cheaper labor in particular, to produce in Mexico and export back to the US with minimal tariffs. We know the effects of NAFTA on jobs in US manufacturing towns. What is perhaps less discussed are the effects in Mexico. US agri corporations, subsidized by the US government, dumped tons of corn and wheat into Mexican markets at prices 15% to 30% below the cost of production. This drives down prices and drives millions of small Mexican farmers into poverty and off their land. Mexico now imports 40% of its grain, whereas before NAFTA it was 7%. Folks went north, to the maquiladoras, low-wage component and parts factories supplying US corporations. Or across theborder. Sin Maiz No Hay Paiz Trade and trade rules reflect relative economic and military power. NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are agreements that privilege the free movement of goods and capital and profit. Under existing trade rules, workers and small farmers lose. For the last three decades, the global 1% captured over half of all increases in income. That’s not only because of trade, ofcourse, but trade played a part. Neoliberalism and its promise of “all boats rising” has failed. The WTO has a “trade court” that interprets trade rules. Over the last several years, Mexico, under President Lopez Obradorand now Claudia Sheinbaum, has adopted policies to support Mexican farmers, and move to healthier food. Corn is themain grain: “Without corn there is no country.” Part of agricultural policy has been to restrict and eventually phase out the import of US genetically-engineered corn. GM corn in the US is grown with the chemical glyphosate, a known carcinogen. Any trade restriction, no matter how reasonable,according to WTO rules, is banned. Mexico produced a brilliant synthesis of the evidence on the harms caused by glyphosate. They argued they have a right toprotect their people, their farm- ers, their indigenous food practices. The WTO trade court ruled for the US, and this was under the Biden administration. Might makes right. Bringing Jobs Back? Trump claims to want to bring back jobs to the US and punish Mexico for the trade imbalance. But it is not about Mexico and the US. Workers here and in Mexico have similar interests in not being thrown in competition with each other, and having wages driven down. Food producers (not Big Ag) and consumers in both countries need high quality standards and climate-sustain- ing production. Does Trump really think 25% tariffs will bring manufacturers back to the US? Does he care? Car manufacturers bring parts and components across the border several times per car in their supply chain strategies. Are they willing to refashion supply chains? Mainly what Trump is doing is introducing a whole lot of uncertainty into corporate decision making. Would some strategic tariffs and an industrial policy that fostered research and development and targeted loans to clean energy firms, and training for skilled workers make sense? Absolutely. But if you think that’s the path Trump is on, I have a bridge I could sell you. Trump’s tariffs and threats of tariffs are going to cause problems. They are a tax, so they will raise prices. Costs will go up, so firms might respond by cutting jobs. Trading partners will retaliate with their own tariffs. If prices rise, the Fed will keep interest rates high. As usual, all that hurts working families. So, what is Trump going on about? Part of it is a show of dominance, playing to his base. But perhaps the main point? Republicans want more tax cuts for the wealthy, and they are going to have to find some ways to fund those cuts. Tariffs do raise some revenue, so that may be the point. The 1% need more. Michael Righi is a retired economics professor and a member of the Retiree Advocate editorial board. < Back to Table of Contents

Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA) Archive collection of PSARA Advocate Newsletters (a monthly publication) on current issues in the area of Social and Economic Equity, Environment, Labor Justice. Advocate Newsletter Print Version

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 February 2025 PSARA 2025 Legislative Agenda PSARA Board PSARA is a multi-generational grass roots organization advocating for all people, and seniors in particular, to be able to live their lives with economic security, dignity, and respect. Health Care 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 Support efforts to advance universal healthcare SJM 8004 Ensure quality affordable health care for nursing home workers (WA Essential Worker Healthcare Program) Strengthen and protect WA Cares Housing and Homelessness PSARA supports keeping people housed, building more low-income housing, and preventing homelessness in the first place. Ensure reasonable and more predictable rent increases by passing rent stabilization Invest $500 million in the Housing Trust Fund RA supports legislation that promotes healthy families and workplaces. Extend job protection in the Family & Medical Leave Program to ensure low wage earners can return to their jobs after leave to care for themselves or family members Extend unemployment benefits to striking workers and undocumented workers Build economic security for low-income families by creating the Washington Future Fund Program (Baby bonds) 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 (WSIB) funds from fossil fuels (No Coal Act) Add a Green Amendment to the Washington State Constitution Improve solid waste management outcomes by reducing use of plastic wrap and containers 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. Prevent devastating budget cuts by providing new progressive revenues such as a wealth tax that taxes extraordinary financial assets < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents November 2025 Aaron Leonard's Menace of Our Time: The Long War Against American Communism Mike Andrew Aaron Leonard has made a career documenting the US government’s war against domestic radicals. His first two books – Heavy Radicals: The FBI’s Secret War on America’s Maoists and A Threat of the First Magnitude, FBI Counterintelligence & Infiltration – focus on the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPUSA), of which Leonard was a member. His next two – The Folk Singers and the Bureau and Whole World in an Uproar: Music, Rebellion & Repression – tell the story of FBI surveillance of American musicians and cultural figures. Leonard’s latest book – Menace of Our Time: The Long War Against American Communism – documents US government attacks on the oldest US communist organization, CPUSA. Although no American communist organization today has anywhere near the numbers or influence that CPUSA gained in the 1940s, while the US was aligned with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, recent political developments suggest that we could learn some lessons about the danger of government surveillance from the past. Leonard’s books, then, should be required reading for members of any progressive organization that seeks to challenge the Trump regime. Basing his revelations on public information requests from the US government, Leonard offers an inside look at the tactics used by the government to attack – not just the CPUSA – but many anti-fascist and anti-war organizations. In his newest book, Leonard outlines the practical means used to attack communists and progressives: Federal laws – the Hatch Act, the Smith Act, the McCarran Act – that defined “anti-American” actions in very broad terms that gave the government free rein to prosecute anyone they wanted; Use of federal agents to infiltrate the CPUSA and other organizations. Entrapment of US civilians so as to force them into becoming informers; Incitement of mob violence against communists and their progressive allies. The spies and informers employed by the US government often reported only the vaguest charges against the subjects of their investigations. And without revealing their own identities so their reports could never be questioned. For example, Leonard reproduces this section from an FBI document: “Edward G. Robinson has been identified as a Communist by Informant REDACTED. Charles Chaplin, according to REDACTED, may or may not be a member of the Communist Party. However REDACTED has stated that Chaplin has financed the West Coast Communist newspaper People’s World…John Garfield, according to the informant REDACTED has been affiliated with the Actors Laboratory, the Young Communist League, the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, the Hollywood Democratic Committee, and the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions.” Sound familiar? Is Antifa a terrorist organization? Is Zohran Mamdani a communist? On the basis of allegations like these, public figures were pressured to renounce their affiliations with communist or communist-adjacent groups, and to inform on their former colleagues. Hollywood director Elia Kazan is perhaps the most notorious example, but there were many others. Leonard shows how the FBI also manipulated ordinary people into becoming informers. Take for example the case of John Lautner, a Hungarian-born American communist who was suspected by Hungarian communists of being a US spy. The FBI threatened to deport him to Hungary – where he assumed he’d be shot – unless he gave them the names of all the communists he knew. “Among those he identified were the writers Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett, Mark Blitzstein, and Howard Fast,” Leonard writes. “He also named the folk singer Woody Guthrie as well as actors James Cagney, John Garfield, Will Geer, and Jose Ferrer; and the scholar W.E.B. DuBois.” Leonard also reveals that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were fingered by Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass. Greenglass’ wife, Ruth, recruited him to steal information from his job at the Los Alamos nuclear lab, and give it to the USSR. To protect his wife from federal prosecution, Greenglass offered the FBI his sister and brother-in-law, the Rosenbergs. Leonard continues his narrative through the collapse of the USSR in 1991, carefully documenting the COINTELPRO offensive against radical and anti-war groups in the 1960s. Leonard's book stands as a timely warning of the lengths the govern- ment will go to to maintain "the social order." Anyone who organizes for social change should read it. Mike Andrew is the Editor of the Advocate and Executive Director of PSARA < 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 October 2025 Alert Your Community to this New Threat to Medicare: WISeR Rick Timmins Writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is a good way to inform your community about important issues and to suggest actions that will address the problems. It’s simple to do. Select the newspaper most read in your community and go to the “Opinion” page or the “Letters” page to find instructions for submitting a letter. The Everett Herald, for example, asks you to submit your hard copy letter to: Letters Section, The Daily Herald, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206. You can email the letter to: letters@heraldnet.com . You need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. The paper will not share this with anyone, but uses the information to verify your identity. The Herald has a limit of 250 words. The Seattle Times provides the following instructions: “Join the discussion at let- ters@seattletimes.com . Please include your full name, address and telephone number for verification only. Letters are limited to 200 words.” When writing a letter, focus on one topic. Remember to adhere to the word limit. Be conversational, not academic. It is best to explain how the situation affects you personally. Your members of Congress (or their staff) read the local papers and are alerted when their name comes up. If it’s relevant, include your Representative’s or Senator’s name and either express thanks for their action or tell them why it is important that they act. We are asking you today to write a letter to your local newspaper, expressing opposition to the WISeR Model, which is adding requirements for prior authorization in Original Medicare. Prepare by reading Robby Stern’s article “CMS Expands Prior Authorization in Original Medicare” in the August, 2025, issue of The Retiree Advocate and Wendell Potter’s and Rachel Madley’s article “Lawmakers Oppose WISeR Program Expanding Prior Authorization in Medicare” in the September Advocate. With that information, you’re ready to write your letter. Below is a sample letter with 250 words (too many for the Times.) Use this as a template. Include examples of harm suffered from prior authorization by you, your family or friends. Call out your Congressperson if she/he hasn’t signed a letter of opposition. Stir up your community! Example of a Letter to the Editor: Contact your Representatives and Senators now and tell them to stop the WISeR (Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction) program by co- sponsoring the Resolution introduced by Representatives Pocan and Schakowsky. This Resolution demands that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) withdraw this program, which requires prior authorization (PA) for certain procedures recommended by physicians for their patients who are on Traditional Medicare. Authorization would be determined by private companies using algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI). These companies will be paid based on how much money they save Medicare-an outrageous incentive to deny necessary care. In Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurance companies, where PA is already prevalent, patients often face extended delays or denials with coverage deci- sions based on algorithms or AI-driven processes rather than individual medical needs. Misuse of prior authorization by insurance companies, resulting in declining health and even death of patients, has been documented in investigative reports and in Senate hearings. More than 32 major healthcare systems will no longer accept Medicare Advantage, often due to prior authorization requirements. Profit-driven companies prioritize cost-saving measures over what is best for the patient. About half the Medicare beneficiaries, including me, have chosen Traditional Medicare instead of Medicare Advantage because we trust our doctors with our healthcare more than private insurance companies. We must demand that all of our Representatives co-sponsor the Resolution introduced by Representatives Pocan and Schakowsky, and protect access to timely, medically necessary care for our seniors on Traditional Medicare. Thank you, [Your Name] Editor's note: Representatives DelBene, Jayapal, and Smith have already co-sponsored the resolution. If you live in their districts, your letter to the editor could urge people to thank them for their stand. Rick Timmins is a retired veterinarian and a member of PSARA's Level the Playing Field task force. < Back to Table of Contents