Connect with us

Business

Column: GOP and Musk unveil a threat to Social Security

Published

on

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 Mike Lee (R-Utah) uncorked a tweet thread on X labeling Social Security “a classic bait and switch” and “an outdated, mismanaged system.”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)

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Business

Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Published

on

Newsom’s budget includes 0 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.

The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.

EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.

Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.

Advertisement

“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”

Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.

During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.

“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”

Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

Advertisement

“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”

While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.

Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.

The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.

Advertisement

The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.

But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.

The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”

“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.

California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.

Advertisement

“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.

Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.

“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath

Published

on

Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath

The charred remains of the historic Pacific Palisades Business Block cast a shadow over a once-bustling shopping district along West Sunset Boulevard.

Empty lots littered with debris and ash line the street where houses and small businesses once stood. A year since the Palisades fire roared through the neighborhood, only a handful of businesses have reopened.

The Starbucks, Bank of America, and other businesses that used to operate in the century-old Business Block are gone. All that remains of the Spanish Colonial Revival building are some arches surrounding what used to be a busy retail space. The burned-out, rusty remnants of a walk-in vault squat in the center of the structure.

Nearby, the Shade Store, the Free-est clothing store, Skin Local spa, a Hastens mattress store, Sweet Laurel Bakery and the Hydration Room are among the many stores still shuttered. Local barbershop Gornik & Drucker doesn’t know if it can reopen.

“We have been going back and forth on what it would take to survive,” co-owner Leslie Gornik said. “If we open, we have to start over from scratch.”

Advertisement

Hundreds gathered around Business Block on the anniversary of he fire on Wednesday to witness a military-style white-glove ceremony to pay respects to the families who lost loved ones. Photos of those killed from the neighborhood were placed at the Palisades Village Green next door.

The Palisades fire burned for 24 days, destroying more than 6,800 structures, damaging countless others and forcing most of the neighborhood’s residents to move elsewhere. About 30 miles northeast, the Eaton fire burned more than 9,400 structures. Combined, the fires killed 31 people.

Remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block, which was completed in 1924 and burned in the Palisades fire.

The few businesses that are back in Palisades serve as a beacon of hope for the community, but owners and managers say business is down and customers haven’t returned.

Advertisement

Ruby Nails & Spa, located near the Business Block, was closed for eight months before reopening in September. Now business is only half of what it was before the fires, owner Ruby Hong-Tran said.

“People come back to support but they live far away now,” she said. “All my clients, their houses burned.”

Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.

Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.

It took months to clean all the smoke damage from her shop. The front is still being fixed to cover up burn damage.

The firestorms destroyed swaths of other neighborhoods, including Malibu, Topanga, Sierra Madre and Altadena, where businesses and homeowners also are struggling to build back.

Advertisement

Some are figuring out whether it is worth rebuilding. Some have given up.

The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimated last year that more than 1,800 small businesses were in the burn zones in Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena, impacting more than 11,000 jobs.

Businesses say they often have been on their own. The Federal Emergency Management Agency tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up debris at private residences, some public buildings and places of worship — but not commercial properties.

Business owners had to clean up the charred debris and toxic waste on their properties. Many had to navigate complicated insurance claims and apply for emergency loans to stay afloat.

Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt’s Palisades Hardware, said damage to her store was limited, and insurance covered the cleaning, so she was able to open quickly. The store reopened just one month after the fire.

Advertisement
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.

Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.

Still, sales are 35% lower than what they used to be.

“In the early days, it was bad. We weren’t making anything,” Maravilla said. “We’re lucky the company kept us employed.”

The customer base has changed. Instead of homeowners working on personal projects, the store is serving contractors working on rebuilding in the area.

An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware.

An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware, where business is down despite a customer base of contractors who are rebuilding.

Advertisement

Across the street from the Business Block, the Palisades Village mall was spared the flames and looks pristine, but is still closed. Shop windows are covered with tarps. Low metal gates block entry to the high-end outlets. The mall is still replacing its drywall to eliminate airborne contaminants that the fire could have spread.

All of its posh shops still are shut: Erewhon, Lululemon ,Bay Theater, Blue Ribbon Sushi, athletic apparel store Alo, Buck Mason men’s and Veronica Beard women’s boutiques.

Mall owner and developer Rick Caruso said he is spending $60 million to reopen in August.

The need to bring back businesses impacted by the fires is urgent, Caruso said, and not just to support returning residents.

“It’s critical to bring jobs back and also for the city to start creating some tax revenue to support city services,” he said. ”Leaders need to do more to speed up the rebuilding process, such as speeding up the approval of building permits and stationing building inspectors closer to burn areas.”

Advertisement
Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.

Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Wednesday, on the anniversary of the fire, Caruso sent three light beams into the sky over the mall, which met in one stream to honor the impacted communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena and Malibu.

The nighttime display will continue through Jan. 31.

Business Block’s history dates to 1924, when it served as a home for the community’s first ventures. In the 1980s, plans to tear it down and build a mall sparked a local uprising to save the historic symbol of the neighborhood’s vibrancy. It was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1984.

Advertisement

Tiana Noble, a Starbucks spokesperson, said the landlord terminated the company’s lease when the building burned down. Bank of America said it secured a new lease to rebuild nearby.

Business Block’s fate is still unclear. Some people want to preserve its shell and turn it into a memorial.

This week, it was ringed by a fence emblazoned with the words “Empowering fresh starts together.”

Caruso said the ruins should be torn down.

“It needs to be demolished and cleaned up,” he said. “It’s an eyesore right now and a hazard. I would put grass on it and make it attractive to the community.”

Advertisement
Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.

Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.

A short walk from the Business Block and near a burned-down Ralphs grocery store is the Palisades Garden Cafe, one of the few places in the neighborhood to get food and drink. The small, vibrant cafe was closed for two months after the fire, during which the employees went without pay.

Manager Lita Rodriguez said business is improving, but misses the regulars.

“We used to get tons of students and teachers who live and work here,” she said. “Our customers are mostly contractors now.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

California led the nation in job cuts last year, but the pace slowed in December

Published

on

California led the nation in job cuts last year, but the pace slowed in December

Buffeted by upheavals in the tech and entertainment industries, California led the nation in job cuts last year — but the pace of layoffs slowed sharply in December both in the state and nationwide as company hiring plans picked up.

State employers announced just 2,739 layoffs in December, well down from the 14,288 they said they would cut in November.

Still, with the exception of Washington, D.C., California led all states in 2025 with 175,761 job losses, according to a report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

The slowdown in December losses was experienced nationwide, where U.S.-based employers announced 35,553 job cuts for the month. That was down 50% from the 71,321 job cuts announced in November and down 8% from the 38,792 job cuts reported the same month last year.

Advertisement

That amounted to good news in a year that saw the nation’s economy suffer through 1.2 million layoffs — the most since the economic destruction caused by the pandemic, which led to 2.3 million job losses in 2020, according to the report.

“The year closed with the fewest announced layoff plans all year. While December is typically slow, this coupled with higher hiring plans, is a positive sign after a year of high job cutting plans,” Andy Challenger, a workplace expert at the firm, said in a statement.

The California economy was lashed all year by tumult in Hollywood, which has been hit by a slowdown in filming as well as media and entertainment industry consolidation.

Meanwhile, the advent of artificial intelligence boosted capital spending in Silicon Valley at the expense of jobs, though Challenger said the losses were also the result of “overhiring over the last decade.”

Workers were laid off by the thousands at Intel, Salesforce, Meta, Paramount, Walt Disney Co. and elsewhere. Apple even announced its own rare round of cuts.

Advertisement

The 75,506 job losses in technology California experienced last year dwarfed every other industry, according to Challenger’s data. It attributed 10,908 of the cuts to AI.

Entertainment, leisure and media combined saw 17,343 announced layoffs.

The losses pushed the state’s unemployment rate up a tenth of a point to 5.6% in September, the highest in the nation aside from Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in December.

September also marked the fourth straight month the state lost jobs, though they only amounted to 4,500 in September, according to the bureau data.

Nationally, Washington, D.C., took the biggest jobs hits last year due to Elon Musk’s initiative to purge the federal workforce. The district’s 303,778 announced job losses dwarfed those of California, though there none reported for December.

Advertisement

The government sector led all industries last year with job losses of 308,167 nationwide, while technology led in private sector job cuts with 154,445. Other sector with losses approaching 100,000 were warehousing and retail.

Despite the attention focused on President Trump’s tariffs regime, they were only cited nationally for 7,908 job cuts last year, with none announced in December.

New York experienced 109,030 announced losses, the second most of any state. Georgia was third at 80,893.

These latest figures follow a report from the Labor Department this week that businesses and government agencies posted 7.1 million open jobs at the end of November, down from 7.4 million in October. Layoffs also dropped indicating the economy is experiencing a “low-hire, low-fire” job market.

At the same time, the U.S. economy grew at an 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, surprising economists with the fastest expansion in two years, as consumer and government spending, as well as exports, grew. However, the government shutdown, which halted data collection, may have distorted the results.

Advertisement

Still, December’s announced hiring plans also were positive. Last month, employers nationwide said they would hire 10,496 employees, the highest total for the month since 2022 when they announced plans to hire 51,693 workers, Challenger said.

The December plans contrasted sharply with the 12-month figure. Last year, U.S. employers announced they would hire 507,647 workers, down 34% from 2024.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending