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 August 2025 Social Security: A detailed behind-the-curtain look at what's going on, posted by a Social Security Administration worker Anonymous I have not posted about my federal agency in a while. Here is why: we lost 94% of the staff in my regional office in the last two and half months. An office of 550 is now less than 2 dozen. One group of folks retired or quit. Another group were given directed reassignments to headquarters components (but did not have to physically move). A third (largest) group was bullied and pressured into “volunteering” to take front-line, public-facing jobs. Many of these folks had never worked in direct service before, and others took significant downgrades to positions from which they were promoted years or even decades before. So basically we’ve been in an inadvertent devolution exercise for the past 3 months. It’s exhausting and traumatic. I’m simultaneously enraged and grieving all of the time. All of my energy is spent on – I don’t even know what. Survival? Putting out fires? Offloading work? Responding to emails that 550 staff used to respond to? Here is a long catch-up post. The Trump administration continues to assert that Social Security is not being touched and that there have been no field office closures. While it is true that there have not been field office closures recently, there are closures and these are completely destroying the infrastructure of the agency. In order to be invisible to the public, the cuts are happening at regional and national offices that provide support to our front line staff. The destruction at SSA is designed to be off the public radar. What is happening at SSA is happening to other agencies as well – like NPS, HUD, EPA, etc. Here is some granular info: SSA used to have 10 regional offices. We are now down to 4. The 4 remaining are in hospice care. We no longer have enough staff to even triage. In my newly consolidated region, we had 550 employees in March. We now have less than 24. The remaining two dozen staff are trying to support the operations of 10,000 employees in 20 states. The other three remaining regional offices are similarly gutted. What do employees in regional offices do? These mission critical employees support the front lines; we provide computer hardware and software support, provide policy advice and guidance, train new employees, train journey level employees on new or changing policies and regulations, work with landlords and GSA, contract with guards, hire new staff, oversee labor and employee relations, allocate budget, overtime, and staffing, monitor spending, monitor for fraud, etc. We will not properly function without regional offices. We are being dismantled, physically and organizationally. Employees are psychologically gutted. Deep grief, anger, distrust. Russel Vought's plan to traumatize the workforce is working. Everyday there is an employee on the other end of the phone or video call that is crying, or telling me about their sky-rocketing blood pressure, about new anti-depressants and anti-anxiety prescriptions or increasing dosages, about their family begging them to quit or retire because it is not worth their health. It is frustrating that both the media and congressional staff keep asking only about how cuts are impacting the public. They are missing the bigger picture. It’s hard to explain what Social Security regional offices do as a lot of it is behind the scenes. We don’t interview the public or process claims, but here are some things we (used to) do that directly impacted payments and prevented fraud. As a result they are not getting done at all. Troubleshoot W2s and FICA tax issues with employers – these are both mom & pop small businesses as well as large employers like Boeing and Amazon. Interface with the state governments on Food Stamps, SNAP, WASHCAP, etc. Coordinate with state child support enforcement on garnishments. Field inquiries from state L&I on worker’s comp issues. Manage Section 218 agreements that state and local entities use to with- hold Social Security taxes from wages. Work with fisheries, farmers, and advocate groups on special Social Security number applications and non-work number cases. Liaison with state vocational rehabilitation. Work with states on Medicaid pass- along agreements. Interface with CMS and state healthcare entities on Medicare. Work with jails to support pre-release agreements as well as to obtain info when individuals are incarcerated and not entitled to benefits. Negotiate with state and local governments to obtain safe and protected data exchange agreements. Resolve attorney fee issues with disability attorneys. Ensure that Social Security over- payments are not discharged and are recouped in bankruptcy cases. Respond to FOIA requests. Headquarters components are also being hollowed out. Not only have they also lost employees to DRP, VSIP, and reassignments, they have been massively reorganized to the extent that there is no longer structural integrity. Staff have been scattered. Workloads are likewise scattered but have not always followed the staff that were scattered. We no longer know who “owns” what. Workload X used to be Department A’s responsibility but Department A is now Department Omega and the group who used to run it in Department A are no longer there. The work may still be in Department Omega or it could have moved to Department B except Department B is now gone too and maybe it’s in Department Beta? The regional offices are trying to move work to headquarters since there is no one left in regional offices but we don’t know who is left and where anything remains in headquarters either. All of this is invisible to the public because field offices continue to function at the moment. It is insidious. We are still in a freefall and haven’t hit bottom yet. There is no talk of rebuilding. We are not there. Elon may have left, but DOGE has not. < Back to Table of Contents

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

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents August 2025 Here Is a Guide to Make it Easy to Submit Comments Opposing EPA Revoking the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases Anne Shields Comments Due by Sept 15. Let’s Overwhelm Their Inbox! rump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposal to revoke the endangerment finding and vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases (GHG). The proposal relies on fringe science and misinterpretations of the law tojustify a conclusion that the EPA should not regulate GHG. Here is the link to submit your comment to EPA by September 15: https://www.regulations.gov/commen ton/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0093 Mom’s Clean Air Force has provided a template and examples that you can use in writing your comments: 1. Introduction & ask: My name is [NAME] and I’m from [STATE]. I urge EPA not to rescind the Endangerment Finding. This rule is crucial to protect our communities and future generations from the impacts of climate-warming pollution. 2. Tell your story: Share how extreme weather and cli- mate change is impacting you and your family, your community, your future, or yourchildren’s future. How have you and your family and community been impacted by wildfires, floods, extreme heat, orother extreme weather? What do those impacts look like? 3. Include a few facts, for example: · Climate change is caused by green- house gases emitted from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet, supercharging dangerous extreme weather. · More intense and more common extreme weather can lead to worsened asthma, allergies, respiratoryillnesses, adverse birth outcomes, Lyme disease, economic costs, and much more. · In 2024, the US had 27 climate disasters that each caused over $1 billion in damages( Climate.gov ). · Today’s children are expected to face 3 times more extreme weather disasters than their grandparents(Earth. org). 4. Close your comments by restating your opposition: Once again, I strongly oppose this proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding. The EPA needs to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the environment. To learn more: See Third Act’s online Action Alert about EPA’s authority and obligation to limit deadly greenhouse gases: https://thirdact.org/act/urgent-tell-the- epa-dont-gut-the-climate-rule-that- protects-our-health-and-safety/ Earth Justice has a brief, straightforward legal analysis describing what revoking the rule would mean: https://earthjustice.org/experts/hana-vizcarra/a-legal-analysis-of-the-trump-epas-plan-to-revoke-the-endangerment-finding Anne Shields is a member of Third Act and an active member of PSARA's Climate and Environmental Justice Committee < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents February 2025 Trump and His Neighbors to the South Cindy Domingo Donald Trump announced that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is his choice for Secretary of State and Carlos Trujillo for Assistant Secretary of State. This signals that the Trump administration will pursue a foreign policy in the Caribbean and Latin America focused on increased sanctions, regime change, and increased economic suffering for the peoples to our south who have cho- sen an alternative form of government away from capitalism. Rubio and Trujillo are both Cuban Americans and have a long history of disdain for the leaders of Caribbean and Latin American countries who advocate for their country’s sovereignty. Trujillo was Trump’s US Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), an international body that has displayed hostility especially towards Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Rubio was Trump's lead advisor, along with Senator Bob Menendez, in crafting Cuba policy during Trump’s first term. During that term, Trump reversed many of former President Barack Obama’s Cuba policies that re-established diplomatic and people-to-people relations with Cuba. This included policies that relaxed the travel restrictions for US- people, which resulted in over 500,000 people from the US traveling to Cuba by expanded air travel and cruise ships. The most damaging policy that Trump and Rubio instituted was placing Cuba on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. This policy increases restrictions on Cuban trade and access to foreign markets and banking systems. It continues to devastate the Cuban economy. Despite international pressure for Biden to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Biden only announced on January 14, 2025, that Cuba would finally be removed on January 29, since there was no mate- rial basis for Cuba to remain on the list. This decision was made after a massive international campaign and the intervention of Pope Francis. (However, by the time this article goes to print, this policy will undoubtedly be reversed by Trump at the advice of Rubio and other conservative Cuban American Trump advisors before it can get implement- ed.) In 2019, Trump recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as its president, despite Nicholas Maduro’s election. Today, even though Maduro was recently elected president again, Biden has disputed the Venezuelan election and recognized Edmundo Gonzalez as president-elect, a move that Trump will also probably follow. And while Latin America has had new conservative leaders in Argentina and Paraguay since 2021 when Trump left office, many left governments re- main in power, including Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. In Columbia, Gustavo Petro, Columbia’s first leftist leader, was elected in 2022. In 2023, Lula da Silva from the Workers’ Party was reelected as Brazil’s president. US hostility to our southern neighbors, including Mexico, will continue to intensify under Trump as the inter- national body BRICS gains momentum. BRICS is an intergovernmental organization that was formed in 2009 as an alternative to the G7 bloc of the world’s largest economies. The founding countries include Brazil, Russia, India, and China and has now expanded to 10 country members. Cuba and Bolivia are now partner countries along with 11 other partner countries who joined in October 2024. Mexico has been considering requesting membership for a few years. BRICS country members account for 46 percent of the world’s population. The developing countries are using BRICS as a method to use their local currencies on the international markets, thus weakening the US dollar. With China at the center of BRICS, they bring an economic clout unmatched by any other country, including the US. While Trump can continue to wage war against our southern neighbors through tariffs and increased sanctions, BRICS and its member countries will pursue building its alternative organization and becoming an alternative economic development resource for those developing countries. BRICS principles based on non-interference, equality, and mutual benefit run counter to Trump’s foreign policy, which seeks a return to the Monroe Doctrine where everything belongs to the US. This includes the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” At the same time, the continued harshening of sanctions will have the effect of increased economic refugees fleeing to the US. Since 2013, eight mil- lion Venezuelans have left the country. Many have gone to the US, due to the economic hardships created by US sanctions that include punishing other countries for trading with Venezuela. In the 2021-2023 period, one million Cubans left their country seeking better economic opportunities. Most of the Cubans who left have come to the US in the most significant migration wave in Cuban history. This massive migration presents another problem for Trump, who has promised to stop migrants coming into the US and to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants, the majority of whom come from coun- tries south of the US border. Like so many of Trump’s MAGA policies that he wants to implement, Trump’s Caribbean and Latin America policies will face heavy opposition in this ever-changing world, where US influence continues to decline. Cindy Domingo is PSARA's Co-VP for Outreach, and a long-time activist in 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 2026 Washington State Legislative Session Yes, It Really Is That Time Again Pam Crone There is still time to register and attend our 2026 PSARA Legislative Conference. The conference is virtual (on Zoom) so the entirety of our Washington State membership may participate. The conference is Thursday, December 4, at 12:30. The conference will highlight comments from John Traynor, WSLC Government Affairs Director, and Nancy Sapiro, PSARA’s lobbyist. We will review our 2026 Legislative Agenda, consider and discuss the current politi- cal landscape and context, and organize for pre-session meetings with our legislators in district. Please plan to attend. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for a successful advocacy plan for the upcoming session. 2026 Legislative Context The 2026 session is the second year of a two-year legislative cycle. It is only 60 days long rather than 105. Session begins January 12 and is scheduled to end March 12. Bills that did not pass in the first year retain their same number and are reintroduced. The operating budget for the two-year biennium was negotiated and passed in the first year. The second year is also an election year. Applying all of this to the 2026 session means that the policy goals will likely be more modest. Traditionally, legislators will pass a supplemental budget that “tweaks” the 2025-27 operating budget rather than write an entirely new budget. Both the majority and minority parties will base their messaging on the session outcomes to better advance their party’s chances in the general election. The majority Democrats will want to show they can govern, end on time, and largely stay away from the controversial. The minority Republicans will be looking for “gotcha” moments. The above brief big-picture analysis is based on conventional wisdom. As we know, though, these are not normal times. Our democracy hangs in the balance. The harmful impact of the other Washington’s passage of H.R. 1 (Big "Beautiful" Bill) is beginning to be felt. Those impacts will be felt by us all and particularly by the most vulnerable among us, including seniors’ retirement security. As of this writing, we are still in a government shutdown. SNAP benefits have been cut off. Huge Medicaid cuts are looming. The Trump agenda continues to be one of retribution to his perceived enemies, including not just individuals, but blue states like ours. PSARA 2026 Legislative Agenda The Government Relations Committee drafted a proposed agenda to be approved by the Executive Board at its November meeting. We will unveil the full agenda at the Legislative Conference Dec. 4. The agenda centers around policy priorities that we began in 2025 that we will try to get to the finish line. Some potential highlights of our 2026 legislative agenda include the following: • Level the Playing Field Resolution • No Coal Act • Protect Against Healthcare and Other Budgetary Cuts to Essential Services • Progressive Revenue We will also stand ready to advocate for all community members in Washington State, protecting people as best we can from the cruelties of the current administration. Session Advocacy Plan Nov. 6: GRC finalizes draft legislative agenda Nov. 20: PSARA E Board approves it Dec. 4: Virtual Legislative Conference Dec. 5 - Jan. 11: Members meet with legislators in district Jan. 12: 60-day session begins Weekly: Legislative updates on our website Weekly: Check-ins with our lobbyist, all Executive Board and other committee members invited to attend March 12: Session ends Dates TBD: Two Phone-in/email campaigns on PSARA priorities Dates TBD: Small group Olympia vis- its for any hearings of import and rallies Dates TBD: Virtual Legislative session review and debrief Advocacy matters! Please attend our Legislative Conference December 4 so you are up to speed and ready to go, advocating for our 2026 legislative priorities. Click here to Register. Pam Crone is a retired PSARA lobbyist and Chair of PSARA's Government Relations Committee (GRC) < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents June 2025 Final Legislative Budget Overview Pam Crone The 2025 Washington legislative session ended on April 27. The information below reflects the final legislative budget. The Governor has until May 20 to sign the budget and exercise his veto authority. The budget does not be- come final until he acts. This overview was prepared before the Governor has taken action. As a reminder, the Governor has line-item veto power, meaning he can eliminate funding but cannot add new spending or shift dollars around. Over the final weeks of the session, the Legislature returned to the drawing board multiple times to draft a budget that included new revenue to navigate a $16 billion deficit projected over the next four years. Why did the Legislature have to return multiple times to the drawing board? The Governor repeatedly and consistently expressed opposition to a wealth tax, as well as concerns about relying too heavily on new revenue to balance the budget. As a result, the final budget includes more, and deeper, cuts. Another major concern is the potential impact of looming federal Medicaid reductions. Although these cuts are largely unpopular – effectively reducing healthcare access for many Americans while further lining the pockets of the wealthy – the Repub- lican-controlled House continues to move closer to a budget proposal that includes them. If these cuts are en- acted, the Governor is expected to call a special legislative session to address the resulting healthcare crisis. Current Budget Snapshot: Final operating budget: $77.8 billion Four-year outlook: $7 billion in total reductions New revenue (2025–2027): $4.3 billion New revenue (2027–2029): $4.4 billion Rainy Day Fund: $2 billion remaining Cash reserves: $225 million Investments in K–12 Education: $750 million for special education services $213 million for materials, supplies, and operating costs $200 million in local effort assistance for low-income school districts Investments in State Workers: Approximately $1 billion to fund and approve collective bargaining agreements for state employees Housing Investments: $605 million to the Housing Trust Fund $117 million in grants to local governments to offset lost document recording fee revenues Maintaining Core Services: $93 million for emergency food assistance organizations $27.9 million for senior nutrition programs $20 million to expand resources for crime victims 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 January 2026 Fossil Fuels Have Put Us in an Existential Fix Jefl Johnson “The Oil and gas industry makes $3 billion a day in pure profit. Generates over $4.3 trillion dollars a year in revenue. It is the seventh largest industry in the world ranked above food production, automobile production, coal mining, and at $1.4 trillion, the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t even crack the top ten. The industries listed above oil and gas are completely dependent on oil and gas. The more they grow, the more we grow. That’s the scale, that’s the size of this thing.” This is the opening monologue by the independent oilman character, Tommy Norris, played by Billy Bob Thornton, in the Taylor Sheridan‘s TV production, “Landman”. Exact numbers or not, they are staggering. And the amount of climate and species damage caused by fossil fuels is even more staggering. Since the signing of the Paris Climate Accord in 2016, the world’s major banks have lent approximately $7.9 trillion dollars to the fossil fuel industry, 20 percent of which has gone toward fossil fuel exploration and expansion. These numbers are real and are also staggering. In December 2024, one month prior to Trump’s second inauguration, six major U.S. banks (JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs) withdrew from the United Nations sponsored net zero banking alliance. This gives new meaning to Trump’s expression “burn, baby burn.” As our planet gets hotter every year, the interest on our credit card payments, our checking and savings accounts, and our pension funds are financing climate disaster. Can we do something about this? Yes. Should we do something about it? Absolutely! Easy first steps are to bank on the community level. We can do our banking and get our credit cards from credit unions, financial companies that don’t loan money or buy the debt of fossil fuel companies. But if we really want to make a difference, we can organize around getting our private and public pension funds to stop investing our pension dollars in fossil fuel assets. We can organize around getting the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) to stop investing the 18 pension funds they oversee in fossil fuel assets. While the WSIB makes it difficult to precisely identify how much of their assets are invested in fossil fuels, a reasonable estimate is $6-8 billion directly invested in fossil fuels and at least as much in indexed funds that contain fossil fuel investments. All told, somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-7% of the WSIB portfolio. Why is it so important to divest, or to use a less pejorative financial term "rebalance," WSIB assets out of fossil fuels? Right out of the chute, fossil fuel assets continue to underperform the overall stock market. Since the end of the last bear market, October 2022, the Standard and Poor index of funds grew by 92 percent, while fossil fuels pulled up the rear at 17 percent. You don’t need to be a math major to understand that our pension assets would earn more money if they weren’t invested in fossil fuels. But given the real and palpable urgency of reducing carbon emissions and slowing down and reversing climate disaster, if a well-respected fund like the WSIB rebalanced their portfolio out of fossil fuels it would send a clear message to other institutional investors that you can earn great returns while also protecting our planet. Not too shabby of a rationale. As a species, humans are great at making excuses not to do something. Particularly when billionaires and their representatives tell us there is a better way. Engage, they say, don’t divest. A cursory reading of the history of the corporate response to asbestos and cigarettes should be fair warning. Simply engaging corporations in a discussion around lowering carbon emissions will kill us on a grander scale than anything we have known before. Climate disaster is the greatest existential crisis there is. The situation that we are in right now recalls for me two sayings I am quite fond of. The first by our dear friend Michael Righi, recently passed, who used to say “every billionaire is a policy failure.” We have to stop taking our advice from people who benefited the most from extractive industries and who will be the least impacted by climate disaster. The second is by humorist and social commentator Will Rogers. Rogers used to say, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Acknowledging that fossil fuel investments have put us in an existential fix is a first step. Now it’s time to stop making it worse, time to stop digging! Over the next several months I will continue to research and write about ending the financing of climate change. In the meantime, if you are persuaded by this article or the group of essays I wrote last year, “Protecting our Assets, Protecting Our Asses”(visit our website at psara.org and click the image on our homepage) then please write letters, emails, or postcards to our political leaders (Governor, Lt. Governor, State Treasurer, Director of Labor and Industries) and to our union leaders and tell them it is time to act. Jeff Johnson is Co-President of PSARA and a retired President of the Washington State Labor Council < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents January 2025 Throw It Away! But Where Is “Away”? Bobby Righi As we shop this season, we need to be awakened to the fact that we are drowning in refuse – plastic, clothes, electronics, shoes, etc. These are things that “go away” to landfills and incinerators and are shipped around the world to poorer countries. They eventually end up in rivers and flow whole or in their chemical parts to litter beaches and then flow into the oceans. Garbage is all around us. Watch the film “Buy Now” on Netflix or in theaters to get a graphic view of this process and an explanation of why we are in this fix. Plastic, in nearly all manufactured goods, is everywhere – mountain-sized heaps in landfills, jamming up rivers, and continent-sized islands in the oceans. It breaks into tiny particles that are in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. So it is inside us as well, even in mothers’ breast milk and the placentas of new born babies. What is it doing to our DNA and all the planets’ organisms? That’s under investigation. People who live near garbage land- fills and those near refineries that make the chemicals for plastic have shortened lives from the toxic pollution. People who try to make a living from polluted waters and lands are struggling to feed their families. Meanwhile, the plastic is piling up higher. We produce about 400 million tons of plastic waste each year, and global production of primary plastic is forecasted to reach 1,100 million tons by 2050. Most gets sent “away” to poor countries in Africa or Asia. Alarms about plastic are being raised around the world, and people are trying to address the problems. In Washington State the Rewrap Bill was introduced last year and will come up again during this legislative session. Packaging manufacturers will be responsible for paying for the full lifecycle of their products, including disposal and recycling. At the federal level, the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act has been around for several years and will, hopefully, come up again this year. The bill will shift the burden of cleanup and waste management to where it be- longs: on the corporations that produce this waste. It establishes source reduction targets for single-use plastic products, creates a nationwide beverage container refund program, and bans certain single-use plastic products that are not recyclable. It will pause plastic manufacturing facilities until critical environmental justice and health issues are addressed. The fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, “The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution,” just ended their meeting in Busan, Korea. It had one job – to come up with a treaty to curb plastic pollution. Since 2022 there have been five of these meetings, but the attendees reached no agreement. They will reconvene in 2025. At every level, oil producing countries and oil companies block any agreement that cuts down on the amount of plastic produced or phases out certain problematic chemicals and products. At this meeting, it was Saudi Arabia and Russia who blocked progress. The Biden administration joined them in refusing to ask for a cap on plastic production. The US reversed their position from August 2024, when Biden administration representatives raised hopes that the US would join countries like Norway, Peru, and the United Kingdom in supporting limits on plastic production. But United States delegates supported a “flexible” approach in which countries set their own voluntary targets for reducing plastic production. We are very aware that “voluntary” targets get us nowhere. The plastic producers work hard to convince us that things would be clean and pristine if we just recycled our plastic refuse. Less than 10 percent is being recycled, so they say it is the consumer’s fault. This is a big lie. Most plastic cannot be recycled. It cannot be broken down and safely reused. PET, the type in most beverage containers, can be reformed into clothing and bottles, but it is expensive. Coca-Cola, a top plastics polluter, has completely dropped its 2022 goal of achieving 25 percent reusable packaging by 2030. Instead, Coca-Cola continues to focus on failed recycling goals that will do little to address the plastic crisis. The high costs of recycling, coupled with low oil prices, means that recycling plastic now costs more than manufacturing virgin plastic. So the producers want to keep on filling our lives, lungs, and gut with polyethylene terephthalate (PET – what Coke bottles are made of) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE – the material for milk cartons and toys). Then there is polyvinyl chloride (PVC – used in medical applications and construction and known to leach dangerous toxins like lead, dioxin, and vinyl chloride throughout its entire lifecycle). These are the most common types but there are others, like the plastic of shopping bags and cling wrap, which are almost impossible to recycle. We can fight this by getting the WA Legislature to pass the Rewrap Bill and also pressuring Congress to pass the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act. We should not be stopped by a House and Senate controlled by Republicans. Those reps and senators have families who are ingesting and breathing plastic, and their babies and grandchildren are being affected even before they are born. There really is nowhere to hide from this plague of plastic, and they should be open to correcting the situation by lowering the amount of plastic produced. Let’s demand that they do! Bobby Righi is Co-Chair of PSARA's Climate and Environmental Justice Committee. < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents May 2026 Saving our Elections Mike Withey On Wednesday, April 8, Standing for Democracy (SFD) and Free Washington Project sponsored a well-attended webinar addressing the pressing topic of how we can act NOW to save our elections from the ongoing and multi-faceted threats of the Trump regime. The online seminar addressed two topics: (1) What is the threat environment, and (2) How can we respond and resist? Attorney General of Washington Nick Brown spoke about the specific threats to our free elections posed by the Trump regime and how an alliance of Democratic Attorneys General is preparing to eliminate these attacks. The major threats included: declaring a national emergency to cancel the elections; outlawing use of voting machines; requiring DHS to create a “list” of approved absentee voters in each state; commanding the US Postal Service to not allow mail in ballots; and an expected Supreme Court ruling that all ballots must be counted on Election Day. AG Brown strongly urged voters not to count on the USPS but rather to personally deliver their ballots to the ballot boxes in their neighborhood. He pledged not to allow ICE or federal agents to interfere with this process. He also described court challenges to these threats. AG Brown’s office will continue to fight these authoritarian efforts, and strongly encourages the broader voter rights movements to join and support this battle. AG Brown was followed by SFD’s co-founder and long-time labor and civil rights advocate, Bill Fletcher Jr. Bill framed this struggle in the context of building the resistance to fascism and the powerful tech, fossil fuel, and finance industries, as well as Trump and MAGA. Bill emphasized how we need to build a broad alignment of forces, including labor, the immigrant rights movement, and civil rights and liberties organizations. He said not to rely solely on elected officials and the Democratic Party to save the day. Lawsuits alone will not be enough. Bill stressed that we cannot afford to wait until November to respond to these threats. Bill said that the labor movement has been slow to take up the anti-fascist fight and needs to be brought, front and center, into the resistance and, in fact, to lead it. Cindy Domingo, the moderator, then introduced the second panel, who spoke to how we can respond to these threats. The first speaker was Charles Douglas III, the Executive Director of Common Power. (See https://com-monpower.org/ to join and volunteer). Common Power brings voting rights activists and, particularly, people of color directly into the electoral process. Its strategy is based upon the voters’ rights and civil rights movement of the ‘60s. Charles pointed to data from the recent Georgia run-off election for the seat just vacated by Marjorie Taylor Greene; it demonstrates that their work speaking directly to Republicans and even Trump voters to talk about bread and butter issue of affordability, was very effective in allowing the Democratic Party candidate Shawn Harris to make significant inroads in Republican dominance, compared to the last cycle. Next, Stuart Holmes, the Director of Elections for the Washington Secretary of State, described the Supreme Court case from Mississippi that may radically change how Washington and 18 other states count ballots. It would outlaw any state from counting any ballots received by the registrar of voters after election day, even if postmarked on or before election day. Present Washington law allows the registrar to count ballots postmarked on election day for five days after the election. His office is preparing to meet this challenge with voter engagement strategies well before election day. His office seeks to organize volunteers to protect voters. Cherika Carter, Secretary-Treasurer of the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC), who also serves as the WSLC’s Political and Strategic Campaigns Director laid out the WSLC’s plans to engage in voter turnout and protection efforts to ensure that all union members have unfettered right to vote and participate fully in the electoral process. David Montes, the fourth speaker, a staff attorney for the ACLU of WA, focused on voting rights issues. He was a lead ACLU lawyer who successfully challenged the City of Yakima’s system for City Council elections in federal court, as discriminatory against Latinos. The ACLU also provides community education and involvement opportunities, which, when combined with those of Common Power, the WSLC, the Secretary of State’s office, the Democratic Party, and campaigns will form a bulwark to defeat Trump’s agenda. Our take : The consensus of the panelists was clear: we must move forward to engage others in this effort and build a movement that can save our elections. Standing for Democracy and Free Washington Project call upon AG Brown and the Secretary of State to convene a “Community Election Engagement Board.” It might be comprised of their staffs and representatives selected by major organizations in civil society, actively engaged in voter protection work. It could include One America Votes, The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and Indivisible Seattle. We must all be prepared and organized to go to the streets, precincts, and our neighborhoods to make sure our right to vote is protected. Standing for Democracy will formally make this proposal to AG Brown and Secretary Hobbs next week, with invitations to many other organizations to convene such a panel. Please feel free to make your views known to us. The April 8 webinar can be viewed on www.freewaproject.org . Mike Withey is a civil rights attorney, an activist with Standing For Democracy, and a member of PSARA < Back to Table of Contents

The Retire Advocate < Back to Table of Contents February 2025 Make Crypto Great Again Michael Righi Who bought the 2024 election? We all know about Elon Musk. But there was another huge source of election cash – cryptocurrency (it’s not really currency) firms and their wealthy owners. Crypto Political Action Committees (PACs) spent $265 million on the elec- tion, the most of any “industry.” What did they get for their money? FairShake, a crypto PAC, helped defeat critic Katie Porter in the California Democratic primary. FairShake, along with AIPAC, helped defeat progressives Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman in their primaries. Crypto money’s biggest win was taking down Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, the Democratic leader on the Senate Banking Committee. They also helped Trump, who, back in the day, derided crypto as “thin air,” But recognizing a good scam, Trump and family are now all in. Besides Musk, Trump is surrounding himself with crypto parasites, from J.D. Vance to Paul Atkins (SEC appointee) and Howard Lutnick (Commerce). And who knew we needed an AI and Crypto Czar (David Sacks)? Rug Pulls and Wash Trading If it’s not currency, what is it? Currency, or money, is a social construct we have developed to buy and sell things and services. This may sound weird, but money is based on trust – trust that the bank where you deposited your pay will make payments when you write a check (old school) or use a card or a digital payment system. Or trust that the government will accept payment in the currency it prints and make depositors whole if a bank goes belly-up. In addition, the central bank will rescue the financial system as a whole if private banks or finance institutions threaten a collapse or depression. That’s what happened in 2008. Neo- liberal deregulation allowed bankers to create and speculate (“innovate,” they call it) on a whole slew of risky financial derivatives. These crashed in value, and the private banks were bailed out by central banks buying their bad assets. Financial fraud was revealed, but no one went to jail. Banks and bankers were bailed out, and homeowners were not. So in 2008, a private group created Bitcoin, a digital currency that was supposed to bypass the corrupt top-down financial institutions and allow users to make payments directly to each other. Did that work? Well, not really. Extremely complicated computer verification of transactions makes it impossible to use crypto to buy a cup of coffee or your groceries. It is not money. But hundreds and thousands of companies now issue cryptocurrency and crypto tokens. So what are they? They are “investments” of a very peculiar kind. They are not shares of stock in a company that produces or owns some thing. They are just pieces of digital code that are being traded back and forth in what is a gambling economy. Crypto shills said it would go up in value forever. Influencers pushed it. This became a perfect opportunity for fraudsters to create a token, get inter- net posters to push it, then pull the rug out by selling at the top, leaving small investors to take the loss. Or buy and sell tokens back and forth from one account to another, driving up values, then getting out. Casino Capitalism Covid meant too many folks were isolated in front of their computer screens, trying to make the big score. This culminated in the Super Bowl ads of 2022, with Matt Damon and Kim Kardashian helping to push crypto to $3 trillion. Then, the inevitable crash came in May of that year and wiped out $2 trillion of that value. Of course, the “whales” were not wiped out; smaller investors were. From 2015 to 2022, 75 percent of crypto investors lost money. Speculative investments enrich only the already wealthy. We do have to recognize what crypto actually is good for. Because crypto holdings are pseudo-anonymous, trans- actions are hidden. So it is useful to opioid traffickers, tax avoiders, money launderers, ransomware hackers, gun runners, and anyone trying to avoid international sanctions. We have plenty of reasons to want to limit crypto and its scammers and criminals. But crypto businesses want more, and the incoming administration is poised to give it to them. They want “light-touch” regulation that would mainstream them. They do not want to be prosecuted for fraud, as many of them should be. They want crypto to be designated as a special asset, not a security with all the investor protections that implies. With very light legitimizing regulation, they could draw in millions from our pension funds and other traditional investment funds. That would mean their booms and crashes and fraud would have a more significant impact on the traditional financial system, the one we use. Yes, we need to reform that system with stricter regulation and new initiatives like postal accounts and public banks. But we also have to protect it from fraudsters and casino capitalists. 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 August 2025 CMS Expands Prior Authorization in Original Medicare Washington One of Six Designated States Robby Stern The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on June 27, “The CMS Launches New Model to Target Wasteful, Inappropriate Services in Original Medicare.” We know from a study by the Medical Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC) that Medicare Advantage (MA) overcharges the Medicare Trust Fund annually at least $80 billion per year. One would think wasteful inappropriate services must exceed that number or why would they be prioritizing expanding prior authorization in Original Medicare? (A PNHP study estimates overcharges are much higher, up to $140 billion annually.) MEDPAC estimates that up to $5.8 billion in Medicare spending in 2022 was spent on services with minimal benefit. Five billion eight hundred thousand is a lot of money, but it is approximately 7 percent of $80 billion overpayments to MA. We don’t know why they chose to focus on the much smaller amount possibly lost to ""fraud, waste, and abuse.” Maybe they are trying to level the playing field in the wrong direction. Maybe they secretly want more of us in Medicare Advantage so they plan to add more prior authorizations into Original Medicare. We don’t know their motives, but below are excerpts from what they did say. "The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing a new Innovation Center model aimed at helping ensure people with Original Medicare receive safe, effective, and necessary care. Through the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model, CMS will partner with companies specializing in enhanced technologies to test ways to provide an improved and expedited prior authorization process relative to Original Medicare’s existing processes, helping patients and providers avoid unnecessary or inappropriate care and safe- guarding federal taxpayer dollars… “CMS is committed to crushing fraud, waste, and abuse, and the WISeR Model will help root out waste in Original Medicare,' said CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. 'Combining the speed of technology and the experienced clinicians, this new model helps bring Medicare into the 21st century by testing a streamlined prior authorization process, while protecting Medicare beneficiaries from being given unnecessary and often costly procedures…. “Low-value services, such as those of focus in WISeR, offer patients minimal benefit and, in some cases, can result in physical harm and psychological stress,' said Abe Sutton, Director of the CMS Innovation Center. 'They also increase patient costs, while inflating health care spending.' "The WISeR Model will test a new process on whether enhanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), can expedite the prior authorization processes for select items and services that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, or inappropriate use. These items and services include, but are not limited to, skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy for knee osteo- arthritis. The model excludes inpatient- only services, emergency services, and services that would pose a substantial risk to patients if significantly delayed. "Companies selected to participate in the model will operate in assigned geographic regions and must have clinicians with appropriate expertise to conduct medical reviews and validate coverage determinations. Importantly, while technology will support the review process, final decisions that a request for one of the selected services does not meet Medicare coverage requirements will be made by licensed clinicians, not machines. "Model participants will receive payments based on their ability to reduce unnecessary or non- covered services (inappropriate utilization) and lower spending in Original Medicare. … "The WISeR Model will not change Medicare coverage or payment criteria. Health care coverage for Original Medi- care beneficiaries remains the same, and beneficiaries retain the freedom to seek care from their provider or sup- plier of choice… The WISeR Model does not impact people enrolled in Medicare Advantage." Trying to cut through the bureaucratic writing, what they are saying is CMS is changing Original Medicare coverage(which they deny) by expanding the list of medical treatments recommended by our providers subject to prior authorization beginning in 2026. CMS will contract with private, no doubt for-profit companies that will determine if the recommended treatment is unnecessary or inappropriate and/or constitutes waste, fraud, and abuse. The contractor may utilize AI to make the determination subject to a final decision by a licensed clinician that works for the contractor. These companies are essentially “bounty hunters."" They are compensated based on their record of denying care and reducing spending in original Medicare despite the data that shows Original Medicare spends 22% less per patient than Medicare Advantage. Introducing “bounty hunters” into Original Medicare... what could possibly go wrong?! On June 23, HHS Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz announced an insurance industry voluntary pledge to fix what they termed the broken prior authorization system in Medicare Advantage and Medicaid. The voluntary agreement with Medicare Advantage and Medicaid insurers addressed time limits for decisions on prior authorization. Standard decisions are to be made within seven days. Urgent medical requests are to be made within 72 hours. The appeals process for denials, if necessary, extends the time before the Medicare/Medicaid beneficiary receives the treatment the provider has recommended. This is a voluntary program for insurers participating in Medicare Advantage. The WISeR Model, which expands prior authorization in Original Medicare, is mandatory in the six designated states. Neither beneficiaries nor providers can opt out. PSARA will launch an effort, with our national allies, to stop WISeR before it starts in 2026. Robby Stern is President of the PSARA Education Fund and serves on the PSARA Executive Board. < Back to Table of Contents

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