"We previously shared back in December that Michael Mulgrew and the rest of UFT’s Unity leadership decided to waste YOUR dues money on having a white shoe law firm harass ABC with frivolous cease and desist letters intended to intimidate us. Unity Caucus has a long history of sending these letters to members who criticize Unity’s abject failure to deliver raises that beat the cost of living, protect our healthcare, and fight back against toxic administrators. These letters invariably warn of legal action if the criticism continues. Well guess what? We’re calling Unity’s bluff. ABC has retained legal counsel — paid for out of our own pockets — and sent the UFT’s attorney the letter pictured below. We DARE Mulgrew and Unity to file suit against ABC. We have already beat them in arbitration and are more than happy to replicate that outcome in court. Mulgrew and Unity have bullied the UFT membership for far too long. This is only the first step in putting a stop to that behavior for good".

A Letter to Unity from ABC's Lawyer

A Better Contract

Jan 22, 2026

ABC has also taken the lead in a petition campaign calling for fee-free healthcare - almost 5,000 have signed. https://stopchargingretirees.org/

Unity Caucus Favors Co-Pays: NYC Educators Penalized for Retiring - Sign the Petition

Then there is the outrages Marianne Pizitola exposes almost daily.

Debunking the WHW Part 3 with Evidence!: Medicare Advantage is NOT Medicare and NOT an Advantage

Marianne Pizzitola

Tell Michael Mulgrew and Unity to stop charging retirees premiums while claiming our health plan is premium free. Let’s send Unity a message to respect us. Let’s tell them we demand what other unions have. The UFT Welfare Fund is sitting on over a billion dollars. Let’s tell them how we’d like it used. Let’s tell them that the very worst time to impose premiums on us is when we retire. Let’s tell them if other unions can better support retirees, we can too. DC37 doesn’t charge members for prescription insurance when they retire. Firefighter and police unions don’t do it. Sanitation, and other unions don’t do it.... Arthur Goldstein

 Sign the petition. 1,575 have signed in 24 hours -  let's hit 5k.

York City Municipal Employees & Retirees

 

January 1st the new NYCE PPO plan was implemented for all active workers, and Pre-Medicare Retirees.   In a few weeks, we will roll out a survey to see if you are having any concerns that need to be addressed.  

January 1st also began the new Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) for those in the NYCE PPO plan, or those who are on the City Drug plan, the optional rider.  The new PBM is "Prime Therapeutics" - no longer Express Scripts.  They are the MANAGER...   Think of them like the middle man to your drug access.  A simple way to understand their job - they get you access to the drugs..   You have the drug manufacturers, the PBM and the Pharmacy.  

Briefing paper, January 7, 2026, V3

The unions’ claim that they can negotiate for current retirees is specious for all of the following:

·      There is no such thing as a collective bargaining certificate for retirees.

·      Except for UFT retirees, we have no say in electing the union leadership. Even then UFT retiree votes are capped at a certain number.

·      To my knowledge, neither OLR or the MLC have cited a specific section of the Taylor Law that 1096 violates.  Any legal memo the city or the unions have is not public so no one can comment. Would you accept an unsupported allegation like this in a high school debate class?

The unions don’t mean this as a policy discussion. It is meant to intimidate any city council member that asks too many questions and threaten with a primary challenge.

·      When a union does negotiate, at least in my local, 371, AFSCME (DC 37), the members approve the collective bargaining demands. No such vote was held.

·      The results of any collective bargaining from an AFSCME entity holding a collective bargaining certificate must be approved by the membership. No such vote has been held.

·      Christopher Marte’s office has cited a US Supreme Court ruling Chemical Workers V Pittsburg Glass, 1971, in which it ruled that retiree benefits are not negotiated by a union

·      Marte also points out that in the past DC 37 and the UFT have supported city council legislation protecting retiree health care and never cited the Taylor Law. Because unions cannot bargain for retiree health care, the city council must pass legislation to change it.

Status of Lawsuits (Brentkowski case; I don’t know how to spell it)

·      Marianne’s group filed a lawsuit in September 2021 saying that the city cannot only offer one health insurance plan for retirees and must offer traditional Medicare and a wrap around. They cited 12 “causes of action” why the city could not do what they wanted.

·      The trial judge ruled “irreparable harm” and issued a TRO. He only ruled on one of the 12 causes of action. The city appealed and four years later, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge’s ruling and sent it back to the trial judge for ruling on the other 11.

·      Should the city and/or the unions (one entity for this purpose) be so reckless as to try this again, the trial judge would likely issue another TRO and the city and the unions will be wandering in a judicial morass for another two or three years with an uncertain outcome.

·      Retiree will not accept a Medical Advantage Plan as the only option for health insurance. We will fight this politically and legally. The city council has already seen what we can do. Do you really want to try it again?

The Comptroller’s Audit

·      The audit confirmed what retirees have been saying since 2021: that the fund was knowingly misused by the MLC and OLR and lacks transparency.

·      OLR tried to cover this up by submitting false annual certifications to the Comptroller’s Office, asserting in writing that the Fund is in compliance with Directive 27 requirements, that Fund balances are accurate, and that the Fund will be used for its stated purposes.

·      The audit also found that HISF lacks transparency and has inadequate governance and decision-making capacity. HISF does not maintain meeting agendas, materials distributed at meetings, or records of discussions held at meetings—such as recordings, minutes, or notes—and stated that it relies on HISF’s monthly reports which include only the Fund’s revenue, expenses, and cash balance.

·      Furthermore, while the $600 million would have improved HISF’s financial position somewhat, it was not sufficient, on its own, to keep HISF solvent

·      As detailed in Table XV in the audit, OLR and the MLC did not report significant HISF liabilities as required by Comptroller’s Directive 27 and GSAB Statement No. 54.

Garrido Speaks Untruths

·      In February of 2021, Henry Garrido reported to his delegates (I am one) that he was shocked, absolutely shocked, to discover that the HISF was bankrupt and retirees would have a new, improved health plan.

·      I spent almost two years plowing through federal legislation and virtually nothing he said checked out. The HISF did not suddenly go broke, and the new plan was only better in the warped minds of Garrido and Michael Mulgrew.

·      For example, they touted free gym membership but never reported on how many retirees not currently belonging to a gym would enroll. I believe that the number would have been miniscule and almost everyone who would enroll would drop out after a few months of basically not using it. And which gym? Not Equinox.

The Management Benefits Fund offers gym reimbursement but it is capped at $50 per month. Someone claiming such a benefit has to keep records and file a claim.

·      I then discovered that the new plan would be administered by a for-profit private insurance company accountable only to its shareholders. The newspapers over the past year or two have been bursting reporting on the fraud riddling these plans. In the 2006 amendments to the Medicare Act (best known for creating Medicare Part D), it was an experiment to see if private for-profit companies could deliver high quality health care and have cost-savings as well. It’s no secret that this experiment has failed.

·      Unanswered is why the union leadership was comfortable consigning retirees to a fraudulent system where the profits depended on denying care recommended by medical professionals.

·      Garrido got one thing right: the HISF was created to cover health insurance expenses for actives and retirees. I incorrectly thought it was created only for retiree health care.

·      I have an incurable but treatable neurological disease and I go three times a month for infusions. The price per infusion for the uninsured is $45K. Medicare pays about $7K. You can imagine the lack of enthusiasm that a private for-profit insurance company will have for such treatment.

Other reasons we need 1096:

·      The initial number cited by the city and the unions was $600M, however that was calculated. Henry Garrido reported to his delegates in the spring that because of DC budget actions that number was now $300M, however that was calculated.

·      Assuming that $300M has not vaporized further, we know from years of reports delivered to his delegates by Henry and from other sources that whatever number is being conjured by the MLC’s consultants, was going right back into the same slush fund bankrupted by the city and the unions.

The Thieves Have a Falling Out:

·      Now there is a falling out among the thieves over an alleged $4B, give or take $1B, in health care savings that the parties failed to generate in allegedly contractual commitments.

·      Henry Garrido has publicly and privately reported that he has in writing that the unions have been relieved of any commitment to save the $600M (or $300M. Or whatever number they are flying this week) by forcing retirees into a Medicare Advantage Plan. So the current $$$B squabble has absolutely nothing to do with retirees and we will not take the fall.

The Thieves Open The Backdoor

·      Frustrated by their unsuccessful attempt to steal health care directly from retirees, they have resorted to slapping $15 co-pays on every medical interaction after the deductibles are satisfied. This piles fees on top of one another so prevalent that retirees cannot afford them; you can’t tell where one stops and another starts.

·      The “lucky” ones have incomes so low that they are dual eligibles (Medicare and Medicaid) if you are callous enough to call being living in poverty “lucky.”

·      The rest of us have to pay deductibles that are not reimbursed, Rx drug co-pays that are not reimbursed, transportation, vision above what is reimbursed, dental above the cap, and front $2430.80 for 12 months’ premium before being reimbursed. This comes to about $5,000.

·      The 27% of city retirees who exist on pensions of $15K or less (even with a reasonable amount for social security added) simply can’t afford it. The 57% with pensions of $35K or less, with an appropriate amount for social security, aren’t doing so great either.

·      The contract for the wrap-around, currently GHI/Emblem Health Senior Care, will be re-bid this year. I an working on a table, not straightforward, showing how devastating the co-pays have become. I will forward when ready later this week.

·      I, personally, begin the year with 86 co-pays: 36 for the above mentioned infusions and 50 for weekly psychotherapy. That’s $1290 (minus the deductibles.) Now, I’m in physical therapy twice a week. This is a heavy hit. There is no indication that the unions will reduce the out-of-pocket in the bid document. I wonder who they think they represent: the taxpayers or their former members.

They have no shame:

·      DC 37 ought to be ashamed.  Most low-income retirees are their former members. They are stealing money from those who can least afford it to subsidize taxpayers. (If not for the co-pays, the premiums paid by the city likely would be higher.)

·      While DC 37 and other unions’ welfare funds provide an Rx benefit (with co-pays), many other retirees have to purchase city of New York Rx Part D with a 2026 monthly premium of $180 (some of which is reimbursed by the city or various union welfare funds). They also may face a Part D surcharge that is not reimbursed.

What can the city council do?

·      Enact 1096 which will end any discussion of a Medicare Advantage Plan or co-pays.

Bob

917-733-0925

1898–1935: The United States launched multiple minor interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence in Cuba, Honduras, Panama (via the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and Isthmian Canal Commission), Haiti (1915–1935), the Dominican Republic (1916–1924) and Nicaragua (1912–1925) & (1926–1933).  

This goes way beyond Epstein

Key Aspects of FDR's Approach:

• Ending Military Occupations: FDR withdrew U.S. Marines from Haiti (1934) and Nicaragua, and renounced the right to intervene unilaterally in internal affairs.
• Respecting Sovereignty: The policy, articulated in his 1933 inaugural address, pledged the U.S. to be a "good neighbor" that respected others' rights.
• Economic Cooperation: The focus shifted to promoting trade agreements and economic partnerships, aiming to build goodwill.
• Abrogating Interventionist Clauses: The U.S. abrogated the Platt Amendment, which had allowed intervention in Cuba
• Examples of Continued Influence (Interference)
  Despite the official stance of non-intervention, the FDR administration used diplomatic and economic pressure to shape Latin American outcomes: 
• Cuba (1933): Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles orchestrated the resignation of Cuban dictator Gerardo Machado. When a revolutionary government followed, FDR withheld diplomatic recognition, which indirectly led to the rise of Fulgencio Batista.
• Economic Diplomacy: The administration used the Export-Import Bank and reciprocal trade agreements to tie Latin American economies more closely to the U.S..
• World War II Security: During the war, the U.S. pressured nearly every Latin American nation (except initially Argentina) to align with the Allies, crack down on Axis sympathizers, and provide strategic materials. 

Containing Soviet/Cuban Influence:

Grenada, under Bishop and then the new regime, had growing ties with Cuba and the USSR, with a large airport under construction by Cuban engineers. Reagan feared this could become a Soviet military base in the Caribbean, challenging U.S. dominance

December 18, 2025

The United States’ Hidden History of Regime Change—Revisited

The truculent trio—Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio—do Venezuela.

Barbara Koeppel

 

Since the early 20th century, the United States has commandeered coups around the world, helping opposition figures and their mutinous militaries topple leaders whose policies they abhor. Why? These heads of state launched programs to redistribute land; strengthen labor unions, health and education systems; and nationalize industries. Washington insists they are “communist” or “socialist” and will threaten American dominance and corporate interests.

In the good old days, the hanky-panky was hidden, since the United States signed both the United Nations and Organization of American States charters, which stated that forced regime change was illegal.

But by the 1990s, US politicos scrapped the secrecy and told it like it was. For example, right-wing thinkers such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, pilots of the Project for a New American Century, had no qualms writing a 1998 New York Times op-ed about the US and Iraq: They insisted that the US should overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime “to ensure America’s greatness.”

Since then, everything has been on the table. Along with Kristol and Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Richard Perle joined the Bush II team. Finding no need to pussyfoot around, they insisted that the US should intervene wherever regimes rejected Washington’s road map.

Venezuela is just the latest country the US considers a threat. Since it sits on the world’s largest oil reserves (five times that of the US), former president Hugo Chávez and, after him, Nicolás Maduro chose an independent course. Despite US sanctions, Venezuela has sent its oil to countries such as China (which gets the lion’s share) as well as India, Cuba, Turkey, and even small amounts to Italy and Spain. Such goings-on cannot continue.

Though the geography has changed, none of this is new. During the Cold War, the CIA cast cloaks and daggers to remove regimes, bankroll opposition figures, and train forces, as it did with the Nicaraguan contras in the early 1980s.

The number of interventions is huge. In some countries, the CIA meddled in elections. Dov Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong, wrote that since the end of World War II, the United States interfered in 81 countries’ elections. He added that if the list were backdated to the end of the 19th century, it would be twice as long. Russia, he noted, came in second, interfering in 36 elections.

For example, before the 1948 elections in Italy, the CIA sought to discredit candidates who were Communists (the party was legal). Since they were the backbone of the resistance in World War II, many could have won. Thus, the CIA circulated millions of embarrassing forged letters and aired broadcasts warning of the catastrophe to come if the Communists won. The tactics mainly succeeded.

But election meddling was the least deadly of the CIA’s cloaks and daggers. For the next seven decades, it helped topple or kill both elected and non-elected leaders in Panama (in 1941 and 1989), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965–67), the Dominican Republic (1965), Bolivia (1971), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976), Grenada (1983), Haiti (1991), Libya (2011), and Ukraine (2014).

For example, in Indonesia, the CIA helped oust President Sukarno and install General Suharto. It financed opposition groups and anti-communist propaganda, trained military factions, and ran psychological operations to create instability—and revealed the names of insurgents. It also produced a pornographic film in which the lead wore a mask of Sukarno. After the coup, the Suharto regime killed between 750,000 and 1,000,000 individuals.

In Brazil, the CIA supported the generals’ coup, since it and the US thought President João Goulart was a leftist threat that had to be squashed. This led to a 24-year military dictatorship that killed or “disappeared” at least 1,000 political dissidents and activists. It also promoted the broader US strategy of intervening in the region.

In Chile, Richard Nixon, the CIA, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported the 1973 Pinochet coup that toppled Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president, who committed suicide during the attack. Kissinger warned President Nixon that “the example of a successful Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on other parts of the world and significantly balance our own position in it.”

Similarly, in Argentina, the US supported the 1976 military coup to counter “leftist” threats. Here, the CIA provided intelligence and logistical support to the military junta to destroy its opposition. And the tactics succeeded. Afterward, at least 30,000 people were “disappeared” as the generals systematically abducted, tortured, and murdered them—even tossing some out of airplanes. The US looked the other way because it wanted the junta to stabilize the region and protect American interests.

On very few occasions, the schemes failed. For example, the CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro for decades. Through Operation Mongoose, the agency sent him explosive cigars or poisoned food, ballpoint pens, and scuba diving suits. But Castro survived until his death in 2016 at the age of 90.

Decades earlier, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan sent troops to Russia in the 1918 civil war to block a Bolshevik victory. They failed, and the Soviets retained power until 1989.

Interestingly, when Smedley Butler, a US Marine Corps general, retired in 1935, he famously announced, “I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business and the bankers. I was a gangster for capitalism.”

In April 2025, Dr. David Kirk, an assistant chair of intelligence studies at the American Military University, frankly said the US will “engage in denial and deceptions” to hide its plans from its enemies. However, over the past few decades, secrecy strategies have been scrapped.

But fine-tuned secrecy habits die hard. When I asked the Pentagon’s spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryon McGarry, about the weapons the US has sent to Israel and Ukraine since 2023, he said, “We don’t comment on specifics.”

As Kurt Vonnegut often wrote, “and so it goes.”

Trump and His Cronies Want a War in the Western Hemisphere

William D. Hartung