By: Freewavemaker, LLC (Jerry Nix Author)                                                                         Date: 01/05/2025

Part 3: Cost of Living for Social Security Recipients

I ended Part 2 of this article with this question: “Now, with all of this going on in the background, is it any wonder that Social Security Benefits for retired people, widows and widowers, and disabled people cannot keep pace with the cost of living?”

When we research the cost of living for the past few years based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), this is what we get:

Here is the annual cost of living increases (inflation rates) according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for each year since 2018 (I am using 2018 simply because that was my retirement year). Next to each of these numbers (in the last column on the right) is actual Social Security Increases for each of these years:

Year	CPI Cost of Living	Social Security Year*	Social Security Cost of Living Increase*
2018	2.4%	2019	2.8%
2019	1.8%	2020	1.6%
2020	1.2%	2021	1.3%
2021	4.7%	2022	5.9%
2022	8.0%	2023	8.7%
2023	4.1%	2024	3.2%
2024	2.7%	2025	2.5%

Table 4

* Keep in mind that the Social Security Increase actually lags the year of CPI by one year. In other words, the benefit increase for 2019 Social Security Benefits was based on the 2018 CPI data, and the 2025 Social Security Benefits is based on the 2024 CPI Data, etc.

These rates reflect the average annual increase in prices for goods and services over these years.

Now, you may be thinking, it looks like Social Security pretty well follows the Cost of Living, but that is not so. Remember, there are some items that are not covered by CPI data (and I believe this to be on purpose and a sham to the American Taxpayer).

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) doesn’t cover all consumer items. Here are some notable exclusions:

1. Investment Items: Stocks, bonds, real estate, and life insurance are excluded because they relate to savings rather than day-to-day consumption. Now, I am okay with Stocks and bonds (or other investments not being included), but when it comes to real estate, real estate taxes go up almost every year. When it comes to life insurance premiums, if a term policy those premiums can also increase each year the insured gets closer to his/her mortality age.
2. Non-Market Goods and Services: Items provided by the government or non-profit organizations, such as public education and healthcare services, are not included. Why would education and health care services not be included? Perhaps education is not included because most retired folks do not have education expenses, but younger ones do. The cost of education really rises much more than the CPI (or typical cost of living). When it comes to healthcare – healthcare premiums go up every year for the young and old … and healthcare costs are one of the largest costs for most people retired and trying to make ends meet with social security and potentially other fixed-income retirement plans.
3. Taxes: Income and Social Security taxes are excluded as they are not directly associated with the purchase of consumer goods and services. Social security taxes are excluded from the CPI – even though, as previously shown, they often go up in stages much more than the CPI does. Income taxes, on the other hand, are directly associated with the cost of consumer goods and services – and to say they are not – is just a lie to the American people. When corporate taxes have to increase, the rest assured that cost is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher costs on goods and services provided by that corporation. All taxes – in my opinion – should be included in the CPI in order to get a more accurate picture of what the CPI and inflation rates are for real.
4. New Products: Items that haven’t yet become staple consumer purchases are often not included until they are seen as such over time—this one I can understand. Not everybody may be buying a new “widget” this year.

My thoughts in a nutshell: Now I don’t know about you, but I personally have a problem with the government not counting some of these items that consumers spend money on, which may go up each and every year. Real Estate taxes are mostly going up and seldom down (the same is true with Homeowners Association Fees, which are also not covered – nor are mortgages or rent payments). Some life insurance premiums do go up over time (depending on the type of policy) and many consumers do pay these premiums annually. We know that public education is consistently on the rise and this is paid for primarily by younger consumers rather than old – but should still be included in the CPI. As for healthcare costs… these affect the older retired tax payers more so than the younger ones, so why would it not be included in the CPI to get a much better effective rate of inflation for the public to know and be able to plan for? And, for heaven’s sake, why wouldn’t we include the cost of taxes and social security payroll deductions in the actual CPI since we know that not only have the rates been going up almost annually, but so has the level of income these taxes are paid on.

Let’s take just one of these for the purposes of this article – and since this article is about Social Security, let’s drill down on the cost of healthcare. What has been the annual inflation rate (or cost of living rate) when it comes to Healthcare in America?

The true cost of healthcare delivery in the United States has been steadily rising over the years. Here’s a summary of the annual healthcare expenditures:

Year	Healthcare Expenditures (in Trillions)	Per Capita Spending
2014	$3.0	$9,523
2015	$3.2	$10,110
2016	$3.4	$10,695
2017	$3.5	$10,980
2018	$3.6	$11,172
2019	$3.8	$11,582
2020	$4.1	$12,318
2021	$4.3	$12,914
2022	$4.5	$13,493
2023	$4.6	$13,800
2024	$4.7	$14,100

Table 5

These figures represent the total national health expenditures, which include spending on hospital care, physician services, prescription drugs, and other personal health care costs. So, based on the above numbers what has the rate of inflation been each year shown?

Here’s a table that calculates the rate of inflation for healthcare expenditures based on the provided numbers:

Year	Healthcare Expenditures (in Trillions)	Annual Growth Rate
2014	$3.0
2015	$3.2	6.7%
2016	$3.4	6.3%
2017	$3.5	2.9%
2018	$3.6	2.9%
2019	$3.8	5.6%
2020	$4.1	7.9%
2021	$4.3	4.9%
2022	$4.5	4.7%
2023	$4.6	2.2%
2024	$4.7	2.2%

Table 6

These percentages reflect the year-over-year growth in healthcare expenditures. Overall, in the 10 years shown above, the total growth rate of healthcare expenditures has grown by 56.67% (If we can trust these government figures). Why would it not be included in CPI since everyone, young or old, needs healthcare at some time in their life? This is, after all, a major consumer expense.

Now let’s add these rates of inflation to the CPI numbers in Table 4 and see what we come up with:

Year	(1) CPI Cost of Living	(2) Plus Healthcare Cost	(3) Total Cost of Living Increase	Social Security Year	(4) Social Security Cost of Living Increase*
2018	2.4%	2.9%	5.3%	2019	2.8%
2019	1.8%	5.6%	7.4%	2020	1.6%
2020	1.2%	7.9%	9.1%	2021	1.3%
2021	4.7%	4.9%	9.6%	2022	5.9%
2022	8.0%	4.7%	12.7%	2023	8.7%
2023	4.1%	2.2%	6.3%	2024	3.2%
2024	2.7%	2.2%	4.9%	2024	2.5%
Totals	24.90%	30.40%	55.30%		26.00%

Table 7

As you can see in table 7 the total cost of inflation over the past 7 years, for most retirees (Cost Column 3), has been 55.30% or an average of 7.90% per year as compared to the cost-of-living increases in Social Security Benefits (Cost Column 4) of 26% or an average of 3.71% per year. So, is Social Security really keeping pace with a retiree’s average cost of living each year. My answer is NO – which is why I have always referred to it as Social “Insecurity” rather than Social Security. The cost of living for retirees on Social Security is actually lagging each and every year.

Is Social Security a form of Socialism?

Social Security is sometimes described as a form of socialism, but the characterization depends on how one defines socialism and their perspective on government programs.

Social Security is a government program in the United States that provides financial assistance to retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors of deceased workers. It is funded through payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. Here are a few perspectives on why some may consider it a form of socialism and why others may disagree:

Why Some View it as Socialism:

1. Redistribution of Wealth: Social Security redistributes income from current workers to retirees and other beneficiaries, which is a characteristic of socialist policies. Everybody knows and understands that, but did you also know there is a transfer of wealth at retirement as well. Here’s what I mean:

• • Assume we have two brothers. One (Joe) is a factory worker earning an average income of, let’s say, $40,000 per year that is being taxed for social security benefits. The other brother (John) is a doctor who is earning in excess of say $250,000 per year (and yes, we know that he does not pay into social security on all that simply because it is well above the taxable threshold). Let’s further assume these brothers were born in the same year (1957), and they both take full advantage of Social Security when they retire at 67 (2024).

 

• • Now, to calculate the actual benefit, you would have to know a person’s Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) for the highest 35 years’ worth of earnings. In Figure 2 and Table 3 of Part 1 of this article, I show my annual earnings for all my years of work. To calculate my benefit amount, the Social Security Administration had to first determine my AIME amount based on my highest 35 years of income that was taxed. This calculation is simply your highest 35 years of income divided by the number of months in 35 years (420), and that is your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME).

 

• • Then, from AIME, the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) is calculated. Now, if you are retiring at full retirement age, your monthly benefit is exactly the same as your PIA. So, let’s assume that the AIME for Joe is $3,333.33 per month ($40,000 per year), and the AIME for John is $20,833.33 per month ($250,000 per year). This is how the PIA (monthly benefit) would be calculated for both men:
•  
  • Joe’s Benefit Assuming $3,333.33 AIME:
    • 90% of the first $1,174 per month = $1,056.60 +
    • 32% of the amount between $1,174 and $3,333.00 = 32% of ($3,333.33 – $1,174 = 32% of $2,159.33 = $694.70 + 15% of any amount over $7,078 = $0.00 (since his AIME is only $3,333.33)
    • So, Joe’s PIA = $1,056.60 + $694.70 = $1,751.30
    • Joe’s Social Security Retirement Income Benefit Amount = $1,751.30 (the same as his PIA).
•  
  • John’s Benefit Assuming $20,833.33 AIME:
    • 90% of the first $1,174 per month = $1,056.60 +
    • 32% of the amount between $1,174 and $7,078 = 32% of ($7,078 – $1,174) = 32% of $5,904 = $1,889.28 + 15% of any amount over $7,078 = 15% of 13,755.33 = $2,063.30
    • So, John’s PIA = $1,056.60 + $1,889.28 + $2,063.30 = $5,009.18
    • John’s Social Security Retirement Income Benefit Amount = $4,018 (this is not his PIA amount as was John’s because, in 2024, the Maximum Social Security Amount is this amount shown. His PIA exceeded the Maximum Social Security Allowable Benefit).
•  
  • Comparative Monthly Income as it relates to AIME
    • Joe = $1,751.30 ÷ $3,333.33 = 52.54% of AIME
    • John = $4,018 ÷ 20,833.33 = 19.29% of AIME
    • If John could draw the same percentage of his AIME (since he did pay in more), he’d get $10,945.83. However, because of the Transfer of Wealth (Socialism), he has to take a lower percentage of his AIME so that those who earn less can get a higher percentage of AIME.

1. Government Involvement: The program is managed and operated by the government, which is another feature commonly associated with socialism. Actually, this sentence should read, “The program is mismanaged and operated by the government

Why Others Do Not View It as Socialism:

1. Insurance Program: Many view Social Security as a social insurance program rather than a form of socialism. Workers contribute to the system through payroll taxes and receive benefits based on their contributions. But do they really get paid based on their contributions? If they did, the amount of benefits each person should get would be much easier to calculate. A wise old man once said, “Figures don’t lie – but liars sure do figure!”
2. Capitalist Context: The program operates within a capitalist economy and is designed to provide a safety net rather than replace the market-driven economic system.

Ultimately, whether Social Security is considered a form of socialism is subjective and depends on one’s definition of socialism and one’s perspective on government programs. As for the writer of this article – my belief is,  anytime money or assets are taken from one party and given (free of charge) to another party – That’s socialism.

Earlier, it was said workers contribute to the system through payroll taxes and receive benefits based on their contributions. They do not receive benefits based on their contributions. If they did their benefits would be a lot lower. Here’s’ a perfect example: Ms. Ida May Fuller, who contributed just $24.75 and got back a total of $22,888.92 in a period of 35 years (January 1940 – January 1975). Had she been paid based on her taxes (contributions) she and the employer paid in there is no way to get back $22,888.92 over a period of 35 years.

If you are not retired and would like to know what you may get when you do (assuming Social Security is still available), the formula I used above is a very simplified example. The actual calculation can be more complex. I would recommend that you set up an account for yourself on www.ssa.gov and use the SSA’s online calculators to get a more accurate estimate based on your specific earnings history and retirement plans.

As you read this and try to determine if you think Social Security is Socialism or not, remember this system was set up by one of the most socialistic presidents the U.S. has ever employed – Franklin D Roosevelt.

Was Franklin Roosevelt considered a socialistic President?

Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) is often associated with socialist policies due to his New Deal programs, which expanded the role of the federal government in the economy and aimed to provide relief during the Great Depression. However, FDR himself did not identify as a socialist and often rejected the label.

The New Deal included initiatives like Social Security, unemployment insurance, and various public works programs, which some viewed as socialist because they involved government intervention and redistribution of wealth. Despite this, FDR saw these measures as pragmatic responses to the economic crisis rather than ideological commitments to socialism.

So, while some people considered his policies socialistic, FDR maintained that his actions were necessary to address the real needs of the American people during a time of unprecedented hardship.

Naturally, no president in a democratic society is going to admit that they personally have socialist beliefs. But one is not judged on their beliefs (or what they say their beliefs are) but rather on their actions.

Now, you may hear from mainstream media sources that some illegal refugees are getting our social security money.

The claim that Social Security funds are being used to support illegal immigrants is not accurate. Social Security benefits are only available to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States and meet specific eligibility requirements. Immigrants living in the country illegally are not eligible for Social Security retirement benefits.

However, certain noncitizens who have been granted temporary permission to stay in the U.S. may be eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits if they meet specific criteria. These criteria include being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, granted asylum, or accepted as a refugee.

So, while there are some benefits available to certain noncitizens, Social Security retirement benefits are not provided to individuals living in the country illegally.

So, the people who actually came into the country illegally are being called “refugees” by the present administration and, therefore, are receiving government assistance. Where does it come from? As stated above Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.

You may be wondering where SSI comes from, if it is not part of Social Security.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program that provides financial assistance to elderly, blind, or disabled individuals with limited income and resources. While it is administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA), it is not funded by Social Security taxes.

Instead, SSI is funded by general tax revenues collected by the U.S. Treasury. This means that the money for SSI comes from the overall federal budget, which includes income taxes, corporate taxes, and other sources of revenue, rather than from the payroll taxes that fund Social Security benefits.

So, while both SSI and Social Security benefits are managed by the SSA, they are funded through different sources. Whether these two sources have been comingled or not, I cannot say. I can only tell you the government has told us they are not – but the government has told us a lot of things that are not actually true.

The only way I know that we can curtail – since we will never fully stop – all the lies coming out of Washington, D.C., is to set term limits on all Federal Officials from the Judicial Branch to the Legislative Branch just as we have done with the Executive Branch. Term limits are a hot topic, and they come with their own set of pros and cons. Here’s how they could potentially improve the political and financial environment in America:

Pros of Term Limits:

1. Fresh Perspectives: Term limits could bring new ideas and perspectives into government, preventing stagnation and encouraging innovation. The fact is that our founding fathers never intended to have lifetime appointments in the Judicial Branch or unlimited terms in the Legislative Branch of government.
2. Reduced Corruption: With limited time in office, politicians might be less likely to engage in corrupt practices, knowing they can’t rely on a long-term career in politics.
3. Increased Accountability: Politicians might focus more on their constituents’ needs and less on re-election campaigns, leading to more effective governance.
4. Diminished Influence of Special Interests: Term limits could reduce the power of special interest groups, as politicians would have less time to build long-term relationships with lobbyists. Some of these Special Interest Groups can be likened to “Money Changers” – and I am going to include an article I’ve written about them at the end of this article.

Cons of Term Limits:

1. Loss of Experience: Experienced politicians often have valuable knowledge and skills that take time to develop. Term limits could result in a loss of this expertise.
2. Short-Term Focus: Politicians might prioritize short-term gains over long-term solutions, knowing they have limited time in office.
3. Increased Influence of Bureaucracy: With frequent turnover in elected positions, career bureaucrats might gain more power, potentially leading to inefficiencies.

While term limits could bring fresh energy and reduce corruption, they also come with trade-offs, such as the loss of experienced leaders and potential short-term thinking. It’s a complex issue with no one-size-fits-all solution. The question is, did our founding fathers expect lifetime appointments in the Judicial Branch or unlimited terms in the Legislative Branch of government?

The Founding Fathers had different intentions for the Judicial and Legislative branches:

Judicial Branch:

The Founding Fathers intended for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to have lifetime appointments. This idea is rooted in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The goal was to ensure judicial independence, allowing judges to make decisions based on the law and Constitution without fear of political repercussions or influence from other branches of government.

Here’s the exact wording: The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

When I look up the term “Good Behaviour” (which I believe to be misspelled according to spell-check on this computer), I find this: In the context of Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the term “good behaviour” refers to the standard by which federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, hold their offices. Essentially, it means that judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from their position if they commit an offense or act in a manner that is deemed improper or unethical.

Whoa … Hold your horses … can only be removed from their position if they commit an offense or act in a manner that is deemed improper or unethical. What happens if they get so old they should no longer be working or if they should develop Alzheimer’s or some other form of Dementia? Do we still have to keep them in their position? I’m sure the “Founding Fathers” and the writers of the U.S. Constitution had no idea what could happen in America in the distant future. Life Expectancy, for example.

In 1776, the average life expectancy in America was around 35 years. This figure was heavily influenced by high infant mortality rates, which significantly lowered the average lifespan. If an individual managed to survive childhood, they had a better chance of living longer, often into their 50s or 60s. So, you see, Supreme Court Judges back then were probably much younger during their terms. Currently, in some cases, a U. S. Supreme Court Judge is not even appointed until they are well beyond the average life expectancy of 1776 (age 50 to 60).

• Youngest Supreme Court Judge Ever Appointed – Joseph Story was the youngest Supreme Court Justice ever appointed, joining the court at the age of 32 in 1812.
• Oldest Supreme Court Judge Ever Appointed – Horace Lurton was the oldest Supreme Court Justice ever appointed, taking his position at the age of 65 in 1910.
• The oldest Supreme Court Justice to ever serve – was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who retired at the age of 90 in 1932 after serving on the Court for nearly 30 years.
• Current Oldest Supreme Court Judge – Justice Clarence Thomas, who was born on June 23, 1948. He is 76 years old (will be 77 in June) and he has been serving on the Court since October 23, 1991.
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg was older than Clarence Thomas. She was born on March 15, 1933, and served on the Supreme Court from August 10, 1993, until her passing on September 18, 2020. Ginsburg was 87 years old at the time of her death.

Legislative Branch:

The Founding Fathers did not impose term limits on members of Congress. They believed that regular elections would serve as a sufficient check on power. James Madison, in Federalist No. 53, argued that frequent elections would prevent corruption and ensure accountability. However, there were debates and concerns about the potential for career politicians and the influence of special interests.  Of course, one could also argue that frequent elections also cause things to not get done or at least get done more slowly.  Representatives have a term of just two years which means they spend a lot of time in one of those years out campaigning to get re-elected.  As for Senators, their terms are six years, though 1/3rd of them have to re-campain every two years.  If they are having to campaign for reelection, they are not doing their jobs for about 1 out of every 6 years.

Were you aware of this as well?

On average, the U.S. Congress is in session for about 140 to 165 days per year. The House of Representatives typically has around 146.7 legislative days annually, while the Senate averages about 165 legislative days per year.  Boy, how nice would it be to have a job that allowed you to have over 200 days per year to be away from it.  Now, I’ms sure they would tell you that they are spending those days in their home states working with their constituents.  To that I would say, “Doing what?”  I never see my congressmen/women unless they are on the news for some reason.  And rarely do they answer letters you may send to them without giving a “canned” preprinted letter by one of their assistants.

In summary, the Founding Fathers intended for judges to have lifetime appointments to maintain judicial independence, while they left the decision on legislative term limits to the electoral process, trusting it to regulate itself. However, that being said, there have been radical changes in law and politics over the past 250 years since 1776. Neither the constitution nor our present form of government have been able to keep pace with all these changes primarily because of the fact that we have “Career Politicians,” and we should not have.

One reason we have gained such “Career Politicians” in my opinion is the rate of pay we are willing to let them have as compared to what was paid in the early days of the country. Take a look at the facts below (and remember, they are only really working up to 165 days per year to draw this nice salaries):

When the United States government was first established, the salaries for government politicians were relatively modest compared to today’s standards. Here’s a brief overview:

So, what has been presidential pay over the years?

Here’s a summary of the presidential salaries over the same years as the government politicians’ salaries:

First Presidential Salaries:

Years	Amount
1789 – 1872	$25,000
1873 – 1908	$50,000
1909 – 1948	$75,000
1949 – 1968	$100,000
1969 – 1999	$200,000
2001 – Today	$400,000

Table 8

Notice how each time the president got a raise … that raise doubled the previous pay, yet it also covered more and more years?

Here is a table/image showing congressional pay over the same years:

Figure 4

Their pay, thank goodness, has remained at $174,000 since 2009. Additionally, Senate leaders, such as the majority and minority leaders, earn $193,400 per year.

Since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to pay Social Security taxes on their salaries. This means they contribute 6.2% of their salary to Social Security, just like most other American workers. As for the other 6.2% of salary, it is covered by the federal government. This means that, like other federal employees, Congress members’ Social Security contributions are matched by their employer, the federal government itself. And this inturn means it is paid by the American Taxpayer since the sole source of revenue generated by the Federal Government is the taxpayer – the true employers of congress.

In addition to this income, for several years, we know that congressional people have been going into office and trading stocks and other securities in their or their family accounts based on “insider information,” which is against the law for all normal citizen of America.

For example, if a senator learns about an upcoming government decision that will impact a particular industry and uses that information to buy or sell stocks before the information is made public, they are engaging in insider trading.

It did not become against the law until 2012 for congressional people when the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 was enacted to address this issue by prohibiting members of Congress from using non-public information for private profit. This also extends to members of the politician’s family – or it’s supposed to. But is it being enforced?

The enforcement of the STOCK Act has faced challenges and criticisms over the years. While the Act was designed to prevent insider trading by members of Congress and their staff, its effectiveness has been questioned. Here are some key points:

1. Enforcement Agencies: The enforcement of the STOCK Act falls under several agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). These agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of the Act.
2. Transparency and Reporting: The STOCK Act requires members of Congress and their staff to publicly disclose their stock trades within 45 days. This increased transparency aims to hold them accountable and deter insider trading.
3. Challenges and Criticisms: Despite these measures, there have been instances where members of Congress have been accused of trading stocks based on non-public information. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several members of Congress made stock transactions that raised concerns about insider trading. The Department of Justice investigated some of these cases, but no significant prosecutions have resulted from these investigations.
4. Public Perception: The STOCK Act has faced criticism for not doing enough to prevent the appearance of corruption and ensure that Congress prioritizes the public over its own interests. Some argue that more stringent regulations and enforcement are needed to effectively curb insider trading by congressional members.

In summary, while the STOCK Act has introduced measures to increase transparency and accountability, its enforcement has faced challenges, and there are ongoing debates about its effectiveness in preventing insider trading among congressional personnel.

Back to Term Limits:

Even though there are both “Pros and cons” to term limits, I am of the belief that at this point in time, the “Pros far outweigh the “Cons.”

So, what would it take to get term limits set on members of congress and the Judicial Branch? It would take a major change to the U. S. Constitution – which is not an easy task – but a possible task. Here’s how it is done:

To change the U.S. Constitution to set term limits on Congress and the Judicial branch, the following steps would be required:

1. Proposal of an Amendment:

An amendment to the Constitution can be proposed in one of two ways:

• By Congress: An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is likely not going to happen since you’re asking congressional people who want to be “career politicians” to limit their careers. Many of us are forced by law to limit our careers – especially when it comes to being involved in something that can hurt others, such as truck drivers, air traffic controllers, commercial airline pilots, doctors, etc. However, Congress feels that they can live and act way beyond their mental capabilities (Joe Biden is a perfect example of this).
• By a Constitutional Convention: If two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) call for a constitutional convention, they can propose an amendment.

2. Ratification of the Amendment:

Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by one of the following methods:

• By State Legislatures: Ratification by three-fourths (38 out of 50) of state legislatures.
• By State Conventions: Ratification by conventions held in three-fourths of the states. So, while just 2/3^rds of the states can call for a convention, 3/4^ths would have to approve such a change.

3. Implementation:

• After ratification, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. It is enforceable, and Congress cannot do anything about it other than do an alternate amendment that can be proposed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – and then vote it into law by the majority. The Convention of States Amendment then becomes null and void, and the new Congressional Amendment takes its place … And the circus begins over again.

Challenges:

Amending the Constitution is a challenging process designed to ensure that changes reflect a broad consensus. It requires significant support from both federal and state levels, making it a difficult, if not impossible, task. However, in this case, it is a very improbable task – unless WE, THE PEOPLE, TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK, and that would have to start by demanding our local politicians call for a convention of states and make an amendment to the constitution (in addition to term limits) that would disallow congress to undo any amendment set by the convention of states. The majority of the tax-paying citizens would have to get involved in this fight … one or two or even a few thousand is not enough.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically disallows Congress from proposing an amendment to repeal or modify an amendment made by a convention of states. Once an amendment is part of the Constitution, it can be repealed or altered through the standard amendment process.

Historical Example:

• The 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), was proposed by Congress and ratified by state conventions, demonstrating that amendments can be repealed through the standard process.

In summary, Congress has the authority to propose amendments to repeal or modify existing amendments, including those made by a convention of states, as long as the standard process for proposing and ratifying amendments is followed.

In summary:

I hope this article has shed some light on the sad state of the Social Security Benefits that may not be there for those currently paying into the system. The government knows the system is in trouble and “it is a can that they keep kicking down the road.” Someone has got to have the “intestinal fortitude” (to say it nicely) to stand up to Congress and force some protective action to keep the system intact. We have to stop taking from the system when tax revenue is not enough to fund government needs and obligations. This is truly the “people’s” money, and anything taken out of the system should be voted for by those who put it into the system.

We cannot at this time undo an unjust system that has been going on for 90 years. But we can, if we care, do something to strengthen and protect the money for the future recipients of these dollars being “donated” to keep those of us retired so that future generations also have money to live on.

Here’s a fact that will scare the hell out of you if you made it this far …

I gave you these facts earlier, but they bear repeating …

In 1935, when Social Security was first established, the worker-to-retirement ratio was about 159.4 workers for every retiree. This means many more workers were supporting each retiree through their payroll taxes.

Today, the ratio has significantly decreased. As of 2023, there are approximately 2.7 workers for every retiree. This decline is due to factors such as increased life expectancy, lower birth rates, and changes in immigration patterns. The ratio is getting smaller every year. If the current trend continues in less than 60 years, the ratio could be …

• By 2080, it could be 1 worker for every 1 retired person … then not too much longer,
• 1 worker for every 2 retirees
• 1 worker for every 3 retirees
• 1 worker for every 8 retirees
• 1 worker for every 16 retirees

When is the government going to do what they are being paid to do … protect the American citizens and be good fiduciaries over the money the American citizens are handing to them in all forms of taxes?

When are American Citizens going to do what they should be doing … putting only true and honest people into such positions in Government and understanding that SOCIALISM has never and will never work? Not even the DEMOCRATIC FORM OF SOCIALISM many of our congressional leaders like to say will work.

It is time we all work together, and it starts by getting the socialists, liars, and other crooked politicians out of the U.S. Government.

In Part 4 of this article, I will go off on a tangent that will discuss “The Money Changers” in the Federal Government and why we should not allow them. For now, you have enough to think about. This 4^th and Final Part will be available in two to three more days.

Until then, Good Reading!

Jerry Nix | Freewavemaker, LLC