New NYT editorial boosts the Social Security plans of ALL the Dem candidates, none of the Rethugs.
Despite the spin that others are putting on this, the editorial doesn't endorse Bernie's plan over Martin's or Hillary's.
Despite these facts, nearly all Republican candidates have called for cuts to Social Security benefits.
The Democratic candidates have played defense and offense. They have opposed benefit cuts and privatization. They have proposed increasing the systems revenues by raising the ceiling on the amount of wages, currently $118,500, that are subject to payroll taxes. That reform is overdue. If the wage ceiling had kept pace with the income gains of high earners over the decades, it would be about $250,000 today.
More important, they have stressed that an aim of reform is to bolster the system, not shrink it. Hillary Clinton would raise benefits for widows and for retirees who had long absences from the work force to care for relatives. Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley would increase benefits more broadly, especially for low-income recipients.
Ultimately, strengthening Social Security requires a growing and healthy economy. The Democratic candidates have credible ideas for creating jobs and raising wages that would revitalize the tax base for Social Security. Those and other sensible fixes, not deep and broad cutbacks, will ensure that the system continues to provide a basic level of guaranteed retirement income for all workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/social-security-in-an-election-year.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0