Thursday, May 21, 2026

Autocracy Index - It's Worse Than You Think

Letters to my ND US Representative and Senators


If this is your idea of a functioning democracy with three separate but equal branches and more than one political party, I present to you this recent article. I’m hoping this has more of an impact on you than all the various, almost-continuous crises and horrors have. 


From the New York Times, May 14, 2026 (same information without graphics)


THE AUTOCRACY INDEX - 12 MARKERS OF DEMOCRATIC EROSION


0 is baseline Democracy for both parties before Trump (flaws included)

10 is a full Autocracy


5: Bypassing the legislature

4: Stifling speech and dissent

5: Persecuting political opponents

2: Defying the courts

5: Declaring false emergencies

2: Using the military at home

6: Vilifying marginalized groups

2:Controlling information

2:Trying to take over universities

6: Creating a cult of personality

7: Using power for personal profit

0: Manipulating the law to stay in power [only Trump?]


Background and methodology: The clearest sign that a democracy has died is that a leader and his party make it impossible for their opponents to win an election and hold power. Once that stage is reached, however, the change is extremely difficult to reverse.

The 12 benchmarks in this editorial offer a way to understand how much Mr. Trump is eroding American democracy. The categories are based on interviews with legal scholars, political scientists, historians, and other democracy experts. The ratings come from the New York Times editorial board. In our 0-to-10 scales, zero represents roughly where the United States, flawed though it was, had been under presidents of both parties prior to Mr. Trump. Ten represents the condition in a true authoritarian state.

Moving even one notch toward autocracy is a worrisome sign.



From:
Keith B Wilson, Age 69, on Social Security


Sent by Mail to:

Julie Fedorchak, R-ND, U.S. House

John Hoeven, R-ND, U.S. Senate

Kevin Cramer, R-ND, U.S. Senate



Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Letter to Trygve Hammer, ND Democrat candidate for U.S. House re Social Security

STOP Congress from adjusting Social Security benefits and retirement ages!!!

Social Security funding is a manufactured crisis. Instead of fixing the revenue problem, Republicans keep trying to adjust expenses. 40+ years of underfunding to force privatization was a deliberate choice. And Democrats let it happen.

Here's a thought. Congress broke it, so Congress must fix it. Not with a hairbrained, corrupt plan to lower or cap benefits or raise retirement ages. Try fixing the revenue side of the equation. Social Security is supposed to be fully funded for 75 years. What has Congress done? Allowed full funding to fall to only 6 years. Didn't our representatives swear an oath to the Constitution?

Stop punishing beneficiaries. Let's raise the caps on incomes subject to Social Security enough to fix THEIR mess. Not the payroll tax rates. The caps on income. Let the RICH pay 12.4% on a greater share of their gross income. Enough to expand the benefits that Republicans have purposely screwed with. Enough to change the retirement age back to 65. People in their 60s experience a second period of rapid aging (the first occurs in their 40s). Why should old people be forced to work sicker and weaker than they've ever been?

Quick notes:

Social Security is not the government’s biggest expense. SOCIAL SECURITY IS SELF-FUNDED and is supposed to be separate by law (but those surpluses made budgets look better). Surpluses have been deposited into the Trust Fund through the purchase of interest-bearing Treasury Bonds. Congress did not steal from Social Security. The Treasury sells bonds to finance the National Debt. If Social Security redeems bonds, the Treasury will simply sell bonds to someone else. Bonds are not instruments of theft.

Plus, the Trust Fund was built up to finance baby boomer retirements during the period when there would be fewer workers paying payroll taxes. The Trust Fund was expected to be drawn down. Fewer workers were planned for. Drawing from the Trust Fund does not mean Social Security is in the red.

As far as companies contributing 6.2% to Social Security, that is a cost of doing business. If companies didn’t pay, the money would rightfully go to workers directly so that they could pay the full 12.4% (same as self-employed). It’s not company money. It’s a way to make that 6.2% tax-free for workers (and less of a shock regarding payroll deductions).

I’ve been writing to my representatives about this mess since at least 2011. It would be nice if Democrats could get a greater understanding of the facts. Hopefully, you can do better!

Sincerely, 

Keith Bryan Wilson
wilsonkeith962@gmail.com

Monday, April 27, 2026

Social Security is in a Manufactured Crisis

A letter to my North Dakota US House and Senate representatives.

For the last 40 years, the GOP has underfunded Social Security, so now the 75-year full funding is down to 10 years! Payroll tax adjustments and taxable salary caps have not kept revenues in line with expenses. 

What have Republicans advocated and enacted? Benefit cuts and the raising of retirement ages! All part of the plan to eventually privatize Social Security (and a return to the time of poorhouses). 

Survivors' benefits and disability coverage? In the for-profit marketplace? 20% overhead instead of 2%. You continue sabotaging the most successful anti-poverty program ever. Because of GREED. Because you are ideologically opposed to programs that don't generate a profit.

Here's a thought. You broke it, so you fix it. Not with a hairbrained, corrupt plan to cap benefits (more on that below). Try fixing the revenue side of the equation. 

Let's raise the caps on incomes subject to Social Security enough to fix YOUR mess. Enough to expand benefits that you have purposely screwed with. Enough to change the retirement age back to 65, so old people aren't being forced to work sicker and weaker than they've ever been. People in their 60s go through a second period of rapid aging (the first occurs in their 40s).

Oh, and company execs who think their half of Social Security tax payments are theirs? That's BS! It's the cost of employing people. Eliminate that, and they damn well better be prepared to give that money to workers so they can pay the full 12.4% tax themselves, the same way self-employed people do. Out of their no longer tax-exempt 6.2% pay increase, of course.

I don't want to hear any more excuses and lies. Social Security is separate by law! You call Social Security the federal budget's biggest expense. It's SELF-FUNDED! It's not a budget expense at all! Social Security contributes not one dime to federal budget deficits or the National Debt. 

Those interest-bearing guaranteed Treasury Bonds in the Trust Fund were bought with surplus revenues. If Social Security didn't buy them, the Treasury would have had to sell them to someone else to cover its borrowing. Social Security, with its almost $3 trillion Trust Fund (to fund Baby Boomer retirements), is not broke. 

As your constituent, and someone whose only income is Social Security, I’m here to warn you of a new scheme hatched by millionaires and billionaires to trick you into further cutting Social Security. They call it a "Six Figure Limit" proposal that would cap Social Security benefits at $50,000 per person. This scheme, backed by Wall Street billionaires, would not keep pace with inflation—gradually transforming Social Security from an earned benefit into a poverty-level program that hurts younger generations most of all, while billionaire elites hoard even more wealth. That's assuming the program has not yet been privatized.

The real solution is not cutting middle-class benefits, but making billionaires pay their fair share. Social Security should be expanded to reflect the rising costs seniors face, not undermined to protect corporate profits and tax loopholes.

I demand that you reject any proposal to cap Social Security benefits and instead support legislation that expands Social Security by requiring the wealthy to pay in at the same rate as the rest of us, enough to fix your manufactured crisis. 

It's called Social Responsibility. There has to be a balance between Social Responsibility and Individual Responsibility. I know that's anathema to Republicans. Grow up.