Social Security may not be flashy. But millions of voters have a critical stake in it. They want to know — and deserve to know — if they’re going to get the money they’ve earned.
And they should know before they cast their ballots on Election Day.
Seems simple enough. But the Washington Post doesn’t get it. Incredibly, the Post didn’t even include Social Security in its 2016 Voters Guide.
What an oversight! It’s a real disservice to readers.
And it doesn’t make sense.
All over America, workers pay in to Social Security — 170 million of them. On top of that, millions and millions rely on Social Security to help pay the bills each month.
But a shortfall looms, and the clock is ticking. If we don’t tackle this problem head-on, our kids and grandkids could lose up to $10,000 per year in benefits. We can’t let that happen.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Politicians should stop kicking the can down the road and pretending there isn’t a problem.
That’s why our Take a Stand campaign is mobilizing thousands of volunteers in the battleground states to press the candidates to level with voters and give them real answers about their Social Security plans.
But we can’t do it alone. The Post Voters Guide can help readers understand how Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are prepared to treat this critical program. It can clarify who is stepping up and showing leadership — and who isn’t.
That’s why we’re calling on the Post to put Social Security in its Voters Guide. Take a Stand has launched a petition, and we already have nearly 60,000 signatures.
News media play a critical role in helping to pin candidates down on the issues that matter most to people and, right now, Social Security isn’t in the mix.
Please join us in asking the Washington Post to add Social Security to its Voters Guide – now!
Washington Post, are you listening?
Video: Take A Stand, Answer the Call - You can't deal with something by ignoring it. But that's how some presidential candidates seem to be dealing with Social Security.