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

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