Business
Column: GOP and Musk unveil a threat to Social Security
You may have been tempted to believe Donald Trump when he swore, along with some of his Republican colleagues, to protect Social Security. If so, the joke may be on you.
That concern emerged Monday when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) uncorked a tweet thread on X labeling Social Security “a classic bait and switch” and “an outdated, mismanaged system.”
Twenty-three minutes after Lee posted the first of his tweets, it was retweeted by Elon Musk, who has been vested by Trump with a portfolio to root out inefficiencies in the government. Musk led his retweet with the comment “interesting thread”; if that wasn’t an explicit endorsement, it matched his way of amplifying others’ tweets, tending to give them credibility within the Musk-iverse.
It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it out by the roots.
— Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Lee’s tweet thread, along with Musk’s apparent concurrence, serves as an outline of the arguments the GOP may use to undermine faith in Social Security, the better to soften it up for “reforms” that will translate into costs imposed on retirees, disabled workers and their dependents.
I recently reported on all the ways that Trump could quietly or secretly undermine his pledge to protect Social Security. Lee’s thread and Musk’s apparent endorsement are different — they amount to a frontal attack on the program.
While delving into Lee’s screed, we should keep in mind that he’s a leader of the cabal with the knives out for Social Security. As I’ve reported, during his first successful Senate campaign in 2010, he unapologetically declared, “It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it out by the roots.”
Lee said that was why he was running for the Senate, and added, “Medicare and Medicaid are of the same sort. They need to be pulled up.”
So here he is, right out of the box.
Lee’s attack has four basic components. One is to bemoan the fact that Social Security is funded mostly by a tax, which he asserts the government can use for any purpose — not necessarily to cover retirement and disability benefits.
Another is to point out that the program’s reserves aren’t stored in individual accounts with workers’ names on them, but collected in “a huge account called the ‘Social Security Trust Fund.’”
A third is to claim that “the government routinely raids this fund. … They take ‘your money’” and use it for whatever the current Congress deems ‘necessary.’”
And a fourth is to complain that the trust fund is mismanaged: “If you had put the same amount into literally ANYTHING else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account — you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!” He states: “Your ‘investment’ in Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation.”
None of these is a new argument — they’ve been swirling around the conservative and Republican fever swamp like a miasma for decades. They’ve been consistently refuted and debunked. Lee can’t be unaware of that. Some of his arguments have a tiny nugget of truth at their center, but in his hands are twisted and manipulated out of recognition. Consequently, we can label his claims for what they are: Lies.
Let’s examine them one by one. (I asked Lee via a message at his office to justify his tweets, but haven’t heard back.)
Yes, Social Security is funded by taxes. So what? Lee’s salary as a senator is funded by taxes too. Does that make it illegitimate? It’s true that once a tax is collected Congress can decide to spend it however it wishes. But it’s also true that the payroll tax was enacted jointly with the provisions of the Social Security Act that designated the revenue for Social Security benefits.
As Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo observed in 1937, writing for the majority in a 7-2 opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, it was clear that Congress intended the payroll tax to fund the benefits, for lawmakers “would have been unwilling to pass one without the other.”
It’s proper to note here that no one has ever proposed diverting Social Security revenues for any other purpose without recompense — except Republicans such as Lee. George W. Bush proposed converting Social Security into private accounts, which would have been tantamount to such a diversion — and a gift to Wall Street money managers eager to get their hands on the program’s trillions of dollars.
But Bush’s 2005 privatization plan was stillborn and he quickly abandoned it.
It’s also true that the program’s revenues aren’t stored in individual accounts but in the trust fund. That’s right and proper: Social Security is a shared benefit; no one can know in advance what any worker’s benefits will be. They’re pegged to career earnings, but low-income workers get higher benefits relative to wages than higher-income workers. They’re also related to a worker’s personal and family situation — spouses, dependents, health and so on.
It also makes sense to invest the program’s revenues in a shared account, because large investments tend to perform better over time than those under the control of individuals, not least because that minimizes transaction costs.
That brings us to the notion that the government “routinely raids” the trust funds (there are two, actually — one to cover old-age benefits and the other to cover disability payments — but they’re generally treated as a single combined fund). The trust funds currently hold about $2.8 trillion in assets, all invested in U.S. Treasury securities.
Holding a T-bond, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of government fiscal policy is aware, means the bondholder has lent the money to the government, which can use it for any purpose Congress chooses and which must pay interest on the bond. Over the years, the government has used the money to build roads and other infrastructure and provide services. Using the borrowed money for these purposes allows the government to do so without raising income taxes, which would hit the wealthy harder than middle- or low-income Americans.
Lee should ask his well-heeled patrons if they’d prefer to pay higher taxes because the government couldn’t borrow from the Social Security reserves. Anyone have any doubts about how they’d answer? Me neither.
In any event, the financial transactions related to the buying and redemption of the program’s Treasury holdings are fully disclosed every year by the program trustees in their annual report.
What about Lee’s assertion that investing in “ANYTHING else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account,” would make you “better off by the time you reached retirement age.” This statement is as solid a compendium of financial ignorance as one might wish, even coming from a U.S. senator.
To begin with, if Lee thinks the Social Security trust fund should be invested in something other than Treasurys, he can take that up with his colleagues on Capitol Hill. They’re the ones who have mandated, by law, that the trust fund can be invested only in Treasurys. Over the years, proposals to widen the portfolio have been raised and abandoned, for several reasons. Some were concerned about the potential conflicts of interest inherent in a government program investing in the stock market; others that the returns from market investments are too volatile.
Savings accounts? Is Lee kidding? The rate on savings accounts offered to the average customer of Bank of America, to choose a commercial bank at random, is 0.01% a year. As I write, a 10-year Treasury bond yields about 4.2% annually.
As for Lee’s assertion that “Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation,” the fact is that Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation every year. They’re also lifetime benefits. Try to find an annuity plan that pays inflation-adjusted benefits for the life of the annuity holder and his or her spouse — for all but the richest people, it would be unaffordable or at least uneconomical.
Lee also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about Social Security as a program. It’s not just a retirement program, but a combined retirement and insurance program.
Disabled workers — and their dependents — are entitled to benefits well beyond their contributions; the families of workers who die before retirement age receive benefits that include payments for children through age 17 — through age 18 if they’re in school. If those benefits were based on the balances in a worker’s individual account, then the families of those who have suffered untimely deaths could receive a pittance, running out while still needing help.
Lee concludes by urging his followers to “acknowledge the truth: Social Security as it now exists isn’t a retirement plan; it’s a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought.” This is an outright falsehood. As it now exists, Social Security isn’t just a retirement plan, but a disability program. It’s funded by taxes, but to call retirement benefits “an afterthought” is so wrong it’s frightening.
What should we think about all this? Lee is a member of the Senate majority; his proposals could be a real threat to the program. The fact that they garnered an “attaboy” from Elon Musk should be their death knell. Let’s hope so.
For the trendiest tenants in Hollywood office buildings, it’s the latest fad that goes way beyond designer furniture and art: mini studios
To capitalize on the never-ending flow of stars and influencers who come through Los Angeles, a growing number of companies are building bright little corners for content creators to try products and shoot short videos. Athletic apparel maker Puma, Kim Kardashian’s Skims and cheeky cosmetics retailer e.l.f. have spaces specifically designed to give people a place to experience and broadcast about their brands.
Hollywood, which hasn’t historically been home to apparel companies, is now attracting the offices of fashion retailers, says CIM Group, one of the neighborhood’s largest commercial property landlords.
“When we’re touring a space, one of the first items they bring up is, ‘Where can I build a studio?’” said Blake Eckert, who leases CIM offices in L.A.
Their studio offices also serve as marketing centers, with showrooms and meeting spaces where brands can host proprietary events not open to the public.
“For companies where brand visibility is really important, there is a trend of creating spaces that don’t just function as offices,” said real estate broker Nicole Mihalka of CBRE, who puts together entertainment property leases and sales.
Puma’s global entertainment marketing team is based in its new Hollywood offices, which works with such musical celebrity partners as Rihanna, ASAP Rocky, Dua Lipa, Skepta and Rosé, said Allyssa Rapp, head of Puma Studio L.A.
Allyssa Rapp, director of entertainment marketing at Puma, is shown in the Puma Studio L.A. The company keeps a closet full of Puma products on hand to give VIP guests. Visits to the studio sanctum are by invitation only, though.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
Hollywood is a central location, she said, for meeting with celebrities, stylists and outside designers, most of whom are based in Los Angeles.
The office is a “creation hub,” she said, where influencers can record Puma’s design prototyping lab supported by libraries of materials and equipment used to create Puma apparel. The company, founded in 1948, is known for its emblematic sneakers such as the Speedcat and its lunging feline logo, and makes athletic wear, accessories and equipment.
Puma’s entertainment marketing team also occupies the office and sometimes uses it for exclusive events.
“We use the space as a showroom, as a social space that transforms from a traditional workplace into more of an experiential space,” Rapp said.
Nontraditional uses include content creation, sit-down dinners, product launches, album listening parties and workshops.
“Inviting people into our space and being able to give them high-touch brand experiences is something tangible and important for them,” she said. “The cultural layer is really important for us.”
The company keeps a closet full of Puma products on hand to give VIP guests. Visits to the studio sanctum are by invitation only, though. There’s no retail portal to the exclusive Hollywood offices.
Puma shoes are on display in the Puma Studio L.A.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
Puma is also positioning its L.A studio as a connection point for major upcoming sporting events coming to Los Angeles, including the World Cup this summer, the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Olympics.
In-office studios don’t need to be big to be impactful, Mihalka said. “These are smaller stages, closer to green screen than a massive soundstage.”
Social media is the key driver of content created by most businesses, which may set up small booth-like stages where influencers can hawk hot products while offering discounts to people watching them perform.
Bigger, elevated stages can accommodate multiple performers for extended discussions in front of small audiences, with towering screens behind them to set the mood or illustrate products.
Among the tricked-out offices, she said, is Skims. The company, which is valued at $5 billion, is based in a glass-and-steel office building near the fabled intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street.
The fashion retailer declined to comment on the studio uses in its headquarters, but according to architecture firm Odaa, it has open and private offices, meeting rooms, collaboration zones, photo studios, sample libraries, prototype showrooms, an executive lounge and a commissary for 400 people.
Pieces of a shoe sit on a workbench in the Puma Studio L.A.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
The brands building studios typically want to find the darkest spot on the premises to put their content creation or podcast spaces, Eckert said, where they can limit outside light and sound. That’s commonly near the center of the office floor, far from windows and close to permanent shear walls that limit sound intrusion.
They also need space for green rooms and restrooms dedicated to the talent.
Spotify recently built a fancy podcast studio in a CIM office building on trendy Sycamore Avenue that is open by invitation-only to video creators in Spotify’s partner program.
“Ambitious shows need spaces that support big ideas,” Bill Simmons, head of talk strategy at Spotify, said in a statement. “These studios give teams room to experiment and keep pushing what’s possible.”
The rolling robots that deliver groceries and hot meals across Los Angeles are getting an upgrade.
Coco Robotics, a UCLA-born startup that’s deployed more than 1,000 bots across the country, unveiled its next-generation machines on Thursday.
The new robots are bigger, tougher and better equipped for autonomy than their predecessors. The company will use them to expand into new markets and increase its presence in Los Angeles, where it makes deliveries through a partnership with DoorDash.
Dubbed Coco 2, the next-gen bots have upgraded cameras and front-facing lidar, a laser-based sensor used in self-driving cars. They will use hardware built by Nvidia, the Santa Clara-based artificial intelligence chip giant.
Coco co-founder and chief executive Zach Rash said Coco 2 will be able to make deliveries even in conditions unsafe for human drivers. The robot is fully submersible in case of flooding and is compatible with special snow tires.
Zach Rash, co-founder and CEO of Coco, opens the top of the new Coco 2 (Next-Gen) at the Coco Robotics headquarters in Venice.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
Early this month, a cute Coco was recorded struggling through flooded roads in L.A.
“She’s doing her best!” said the person recording the video. “She is doing her best, you guys.”
Instagram followers cheered the bot on, with one posting, “Go coco, go,” and others calling for someone to help the robot.
“We want it to have a lot more reliability in the most extreme conditions where it’s either unsafe or uncomfortable for human drivers to be on the road,” Rash said. “Those are the exact times where everyone wants to order.”
The company will ramp up mass production of Coco 2 this summer, Rash said, aiming to produce 1,000 bots each month.
The design is sleek and simple, with a pink-and-white ombré paint job, the company’s name printed in lowercase, and a keypad for loading and unloading the cargo area. The robots have four wheels and a bigger internal compartment for carrying food and goods .
Many of the bots will be used for expansion into new markets across Europe and Asia, but they will also hit the streets in Los Angeles and operate alongside the older Coco bots.
Coco has about 300 bots in Los Angeles already, serving customers from Santa Monica and Venice to Westwood, Mid-City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake, downtown, Koreatown and the USC area.
The new Coco 2 (Next-Gen) drives along the sidewalk at the Coco Robotics headquarters in Venice.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
The company is in discussion with officials in Culver City, Long Beach and Pasadena about bringing autonomous delivery to those communities.
There’s also been demand for the bots in Studio City, Burbank and the San Fernando Valley, according to Rash.
“A lot of the markets that we go into have been telling us they can’t hire enough people to do the deliveries and to continue to grow at the pace that customers want,” Rash said. “There’s quite a lot of area in Los Angeles that we can still cover.”
The bots already operate in Chicago, Miami and Helsinki, Finland. Last month, they arrived in Jersey City, N.J.
Late last year, Coco announced a partnership with DashMart, DoorDash’s delivery-only online store. The partnership allows Coco bots to deliver fresh groceries, electronics and household essentials as well as hot prepared meals.
With the release of Coco 2, the company is eyeing faster deliveries using bike lanes and road shoulders as opposed to just sidewalks, in cities where it’s safe to do so. Coco 2 can adapt more quickly to new environments and physical obstacles, the company said.
Zach Rash, co-founder and CEO of Coco.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
Coco 2 is designed to operate autonomously, but there will still be human oversight in case the robot runs into trouble, Rash said. Damaged sidewalks or unexpected construction can stop a bot in its tracks.
The need for human supervision has created a new field of jobs for Angelenos.
Though there have been reports of pedestrians bullying the robots by knocking them over or blocking their path, Rash said the community response has been overall positive. The bots are meant to inspire affection.
“One of the design principles on the color and the name and a lot of the branding was to feel warm and friendly to people,” Rash said.
Coco plans to add thousands of bots to its fleet this year. The delivery service got its start as a dorm room project in 2020, when Rash was a student at UCLA. He co-founded the company with fellow student Brad Squicciarini.
The Santa Monica-based company has completed more than 500,000 zero-emission deliveries and its bots have collectively traveled around 1 million miles.
Coco chooses neighborhoods to deploy its bots based on density, prioritizing areas with restaurants clustered together and short delivery distances as well as places where parking is difficult.
The robots can relieve congestion by taking cars and motorbikes off the roads. Rash said there is so much demand for delivery services that the company’s bots are not taking jobs from human drivers.
Instead, Coco can fill gaps in the delivery market while saving merchants money and improving the safety of city streets.
“This vehicle is inherently a lot safer for communities than a car,” Rash said. “We believe our vehicles can operate the highest quality of service and we can do it at the lowest price point.”
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
6 Friendliest Towns to Visit on the Pacific Coast in 2026
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed in strikes; Pennsylvania lawmakers respond
Rhode Island women’s basketball wins A-10 regular-season championship
Tessa Johnson injury update for Dawn Staley, South Carolina vs Kentucky
3 takeaways from South Dakota State basketball’s revenge win over USD
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Mamdani’s response to Trump’s Iran strike sparks conservative backlash: ‘Rooting for the ayatollah’
Activists hail ‘historic’ EU’s decision on accessible abortion
A long-buried recording and the Supreme Court of old (CT+) : Consider This from NPR
2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana6 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT