Actually, the article was fine, the problem was the headline "Candidates Diverge on How to Save Social Security." Do the candidates diverge on their plans to "save" the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Energy Department?
The Post doesn't run front page headlines like this because they would not make any sense. Neither does this headline about a program that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects to be fully solvent until 2046 with no changes whatsoever. CBO projects that even after the date when the program can no longer pay full benefits it would always be able to pay larger real benefits than what current retirees receive.
The Post's editors don't like Social Security and would like to see the program cut and/or privatized. They should try to keep their editorializing out of front page headlines.
A second Trump administration will cement a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court for a generation, and put our collective future in the hands of someone who will be virtually unchecked by our institutions. The country has shifted rightward, and the reverberations will ensue for potentially the next few decades. In this climate, a robust independent media ecosystem will be more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on how Trump's agenda will actually affect the American people, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in this country.
Quality journalism is expensive to produce, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund what we do. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make our work possible. Any amount you give today will help us continue reporting on what matters to our democracy.