Birthday Calls to Action: Medicaid/Husky, Medicare and Social Security

 

The 61 st anniversary of the passage of Medicare and Medicaid on July 30, and the upcoming 91 st anniversary of Social Security in August were marked in Connecticut with urgent calls to action.

The Connecticut Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA) gathered at the CSEA union hall in Hartford to celebrate both anniversaries. Speaking to the urgent need to stop MAGA Republicans from privatizing Social Security and devastating the lives of millions of retirees, disbled and children, Congressman John Larson called on Congress to “scrap the cap” and make top earners pay their share of Social Security taxes so the entire program remains solvent into the future.

A press conference at the state capitol organized by the Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG) focused on the cruel cuts by the MAGA Republican Congress to Medicaid/HUSKY which covers one in four state residents in every single city and town.

More than 900,000 people who are on Medicaid/HUSKY in Connecticut, a third of whom are children, are threatened by new federal work requirements and eligibility changes in the cruel “Big Beautiful Bill.”

In October, both non-citizens and legal permanent residents who once qualified for HUSKY will no longer be covered. In January work requirements will be imposed on Medicaid recipients from 19 to 64 years old.

“Advocates, lawmakers, Governor Lamont, state leaders, we all need to work together with our state agencies to make sure families do not lose their healthcare,” declared State Rep. Jane Baribay, co-chair of the Aging Committee.

As a result of grassroots pressure and organizing last year, the Legislature and Governor allocated extra state funding to support Medicait/HUSKY, but now much more is required.

“The time has come to pressure leaders for universal health care,” said Tom Swan, executive director of CCAG.  “We’ve been close before, but what’s happening now proves it more than ever. We need universal healthcare. Let’s stop messing around.”

The state Department of Social Services (DSS) has created a “prescreener site” on their webpage enabling those receiving HUSKY to see if eligibility changes will affect them..

Legislators, Unions Urge Yale: Stand up to Trump

 

State representatives, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have a message for Yale: Stand up against Trump, and we will stand with you. On May 14, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that it found Yale discriminated against Asian and white applicants to the Yale School of Medicine, and threatened to extend these allegations to law school and undergraduate admissions as well. These dubious “findings” are part of the Trump administration’s long battle against academic freedom with the intention of inducing a chilling effect on campus speech. In response to these threats of litigation, Yale has the choice to stand up and use its $44 billion endowment to fight for academic freedom, or seek a surrender settlement in response to Trump’s shakedown.

According to a letter from eight State Lawmakers, including New Haven representatives Pat Dillon, Roland Lemar, and Steve Winter, the allegations made by the DOJ are unfounded and need to be challenged. “...capitulating now would constitute a serious abandonment of Yale’s values, be a severe strategic miscalculation, and could jeopardize Yale’s relationship with the State of Connecticut — including state-granted privileges the University has long taken for granted,” reads the letter, which clarifies that such privileges include the university’s special tax-exempt status that could potentially be eliminated.

While Yale leadership could pursue a settlement to get the Trump administration off their back temporarily, surrendering would only provide additional ammunition for Trump to pursue more concessions from higher education, at Yale and beyond. As noted in the lawmakers’ letter, settlements at other universities, including Columbia, have only served as a “springboard for new demands.” Additionally, the AAUP has asserted that a potential Yale settlement would endanger institutions of higher education throughout the state, especially those who lack the financial power to fight the administration in court. The AAUP is prepared to legally challenge the settlement if it occurs.

The national AFT and AFT Connecticut also joined the AAUP in calling on Yale to reject a settlement. While the DOJ claims the allegations against Yale are only about admissions, it represents a continuation of Trump’s intention to limit academic freedom in educational institutions across the country. In a letter issued by the AAUP and AFT, such a settlement would also give the federal government continued leverage over “hiring, curriculum, research, medical practice, campus speech, student discipline, or faculty governance.” As the letter from the CT state lawmakers also noted, “settlements have consistently placed universities — and their leaders and employees personally — in a worse legal position than they occupied under existing law, not a better one.”

If Yale University shows that mere threats of litigation over unproven allegations will lead to preemptive compliance, it would only encourage the Trump administration to continue his anti-education agenda using such threats as a bargaining chip. Trump, in addition to being firmly anti-science, has threatened to abolish the Department of Education. Federal funding has been withdrawn from programs that include crucial medical and climate change research. The administration has also attacked Historically Black Colleges and Universities throughout the country, inflicting them with severe funding cuts and undermining federal student loan programs.

"Even at smaller colleges like Smith, we are paying close attention to the actions by the Yale administration in the face of Trump's escalating threats. Yale's refusal to buckle to illegal demands from the Trump Administration is one all colleges and universities have stakes in supporting. We stand in solidarity with the college communities of workers and students like Yale who have the courage to fight judicial overreach and bullying to want to steal hard-won basic rights, equality and access to educational resources,” Elisabeth Armstrong, the Sydenham Parsons Clark Professor in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Smith College and AAUP member, told the People’s World.

If Yale chooses to stand with its own academic community to fight back against Trump’s demands, it would be using its financial resources and status to not only protect its own students, faculty, and workers, but also the entire system of higher education in the US. When Harvard University joined the AAUP in litigation against the federal government, billions of dollars in frozen funding was restored. State lawmakers have asserted that if Yale would fight as Harvard did, it would almost certainly win. Yale would have the support of the AAUP, the AFT, and CT state lawmakers behind it, should it choose to defend its own principles of academic freedom and institutional independence.

Congress Urged to Extend Haitian TPS Status

Union leaders and elected officials demanded action as fear and devastation grip the Haitian community with Trump's expiration of TPS (Temporary Protected Status) work authorizations. Thousands of long-term residents and their families and communities where they live and work have been thrown into crisis.

About 9,460 people with TPS live in Connecticut and 5,000 Haitians are losing work authorization according to Comptroller Sean Scanlon. TPS was created for those escaping war, natural disaster or other dangerous sitations.

The sudden loss of these Haitian workers, many in healtcare, is devastating nursing homes, hospitals and longterm care facilities.

Decrying the situation at a press conference in Manchester, Stephanie Deceus, a vice president of SEIU 1199NE healthcare workers union, warned of dire consequescen for healthcare delivery.

“These are registered nurses, LPNs, CNAs, home care workers, group home workers. These are people who make the full chain of care. They care for our parents. They care for our grandparents. They care for our neighbors. They care for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.,” she explained.

"These are not just numbers in a workforce report," Deceus continued. "These are people. These are real people, real families. These are homeowners with longstanding ties to our community. These are caregivers that our community depends on every single day. They have built their lives here. They raise families here. They care for our loved ones here," she emphasized.

Scanlon called on Congress to act immediately to extend work authorization status to those on TPS. Senate bill S. 4814 would require DHS to redesignate Haiti for TPS and extend protections through January 2029, protecting essential workers from deportation, and creating a pathway to permanent residency. Its House companion, H.R. 1689, already passed with bipartisan support. Another bill with 50 co-sponsors including Rep. John Larson, the Temporary Protected Status Review Act, would establish additional protections for TPS recipients. The Safe Environment from Countries Under Repression and Emergency Act, or SECURE, was introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and dozens of other Democratic senators.

Legislators, Unions Urge Yale: Stand up to Trump

State representatives, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have a message for Yale: Stand up against Trump, and we will stand with you. On May 14, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that it found Yale discriminated against Asian and white applicants to the Yale School of Medicine, and threatened to extend these allegations to law school and undergraduate admissions as well. These dubious “findings” are part of the Trump administration’s long battle against academic freedom with the intention of inducing a chilling effect on campus speech. In response to these threats of litigation, Yale has the choice to stand up and use its $44 billion endowment to fight for academic freedom, or seek a surrender settlement in response to Trump’s shakedown.

According to a letter from eight State Lawmakers, including New Haven representatives Pat Dillon, Roland Lemar, and Steve Winter, the allegations made by the DOJ are unfounded and need to be challenged. “...capitulating now would constitute a serious abandonment of Yale’s values, be a severe strategic miscalculation, and could jeopardize Yale’s relationship with the State of Connecticut — including state-granted privileges the University has long taken for granted,” reads the letter, which clarifies that such privileges include the university’s special tax-exempt status that could potentially be eliminated.

While Yale leadership could pursue a settlement to get the Trump administration off their back temporarily, surrendering would only provide additional ammunition for Trump to pursue more concessions from higher education, at Yale and beyond. As noted in the lawmakers’ letter, settlements at other universities, including Columbia, have only served as a “springboard for new demands.” Additionally, the AAUP has asserted that a potential Yale settlement would endanger institutions of higher education throughout the state, especially those who lack the financial power to fight the administration in court. The AAUP is prepared to legally challenge the settlement if it occurs.

The national AFT and AFT Connecticut also joined the AAUP in calling on Yale to reject a settlement. While the DOJ claims the allegations against Yale are only about admissions, it represents a continuation of Trump’s intention to limit academic freedom in educational institutions across the country. In a letter issued by the AAUP and AFT, such a settlement would also give the federal government continued leverage over “hiring, curriculum, research, medical practice, campus speech, student discipline, or faculty governance.” As the letter from the CT state lawmakers also noted, “settlements have consistently placed universities — and their leaders and employees personally — in a worse legal position than they occupied under existing law, not a better one.”

If Yale University shows that mere threats of litigation over unproven allegations will lead to preemptive compliance, it would only encourage the Trump administration to continue his anti-education agenda using such threats as a bargaining chip. Trump, in addition to being firmly anti-science, has threatened to abolish the Department of Education. Federal funding has been withdrawn from programs that include crucial medical and climate change research. The administration has also attacked Historically Black Colleges and Universities throughout the country, inflicting them with severe funding cuts and undermining federal student loan programs.

"Even at smaller colleges like Smith, we are paying close attention to the actions by the Yale administration in the face of Trump's escalating threats. Yale's refusal to buckle to illegal demands from the Trump Administration is one all colleges and universities have stakes in supporting. We stand in solidarity with the college communities of workers and students like Yale who have the courage to fight judicial overreach and bullying to want to steal hard-won basic rights, equality and access to educational resources,” Elisabeth Armstrong, the Sydenham Parsons Clark Professor in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Smith College and AAUP member, told the People’s World.

If Yale chooses to stand with its own academic community to fight back against Trump’s demands, it would be using its financial resources and status to not only protect its own students, faculty, and workers, but also the entire system of higher education in the US. When Harvard University joined the AAUP in litigation against the federal government, billions of dollars in frozen funding was restored. State lawmakers have asserted that if Yale would fight as Harvard did, it would almost certainly win. Yale would have the support of the AAUP, the AFT, and CT state lawmakers behind it, should it choose to defend its own principles of academic freedom and institutional independence.

Court protects CT voter lists from Trump

“Big win for Connecticut voters,” said Attorney General William Tong this week. “A federal judge dismissed the Trump Administration's lawsuit seeking to force Connecticut to hand over its statewide voter registration list.”

In January, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Connecticut for its refusal to hand over voter registration lists. It filed similar suits against 22 other states. Connecticut maintained it complies with all federal election laws while protecting sensitive voter information and that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not authorize DOJ’s demand.

“This lawsuit was an illegal attempt to disenfranchise Connecticut voters and today, the court shut it down. The Constitution is clear: the President does not control our elections and has no right to manipulate Connecticut voter rolls,” said Tong.

“Connecticut follows federal law and takes its obligations under federal law very seriously. We will not be bullied into handing over sensitive voter information just because Trump demands it.”

Motions to dismiss the lawsuit were also filed by the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut and Common Cause, SEIU District 1199NE, the Connecticut Alliance for Retired Americans, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and Stephanie Thomas the Secretary of State.

In the decision, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley dismissed the action, concluding DOJ has no authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to require Connecticut to produce its statewide voter registration list. The court held that the list falls outside the statute because it is created by the Secretary of State.

“This administration has used the courts to push their agenda. They tried to gain access to our state’s voter data, putting our residents’ privacy at risk,” said Dan Barrett, Legal Director for the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut.

“As Connecticut’s primaries are only weeks away, with the midterm elections soon after, this ruling comes when election integrity matters most. This decision reaffirms what has already been true for years: Connecticut’s elections are safe and secure. In this state, every voter has the right to cast their ballot and know that their privacy will be respected in the process.” he said.