Sunday roundup

Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard says that just because DJT has bellowed that no changes will be made to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and thus given the more timid Pubs in Congress cover, the problem hasn't gone away:

The math isn’t complicated. If the federal government doesn't reform entitlements soon, the country will face a debt crisis. There is no disputing this. It's inevitable. The only unknown is timing. And the stubborn determination of some leaders in both political parties to ignore runaway entitlement growth—the most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States—means the crisis will come sooner rather than later.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2008 federal debt was 39 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). In the summer of 2016, it was 75 percent of GDP. Without changes, it's projected to be 86 percent of GDP in 2026, and 20 years after that, in 2046, it will be 141 percent of GDP—an all-time high. That is a disastrous trajectory with potentially devastating consequences. In the anodyne jargon of the CBO: "The prospect of such a large debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges."

Hayes points out that Paul Ryan is the only person in the conversation who is willing to talk about taking action right away, but that even he presents a problem. His pony-in-here-somewhere sunniness puts way too much stock in bringing Squirrel-Hair along:

Paul Ryan doesn't see the gulf between congressional Republicans and Trump that seems clear to us. Ryan said last week that he believes Trump will support some entitlement reform, despite the president's many promises to protect the current system. "[In] all my conversations with the president, he says, 'I don't want to change Medicare benefits for people in or near retirement,' and we agree with that," Ryan said.

We suspect this is better seen as evidence of Ryan's undying optimism than a real possibility of entitlement reform under President Trump. But if the president truly wants to fix Washington and address the expanding debt, as he often claims, he can turn to Ryan for solutions.

As the president said in his address to Congress: "The time for small thinking is over." 

David E. Sanger and William J. Broad at the New York Times look extensively at the full scope of the North Korean nuclear missile threat.  The argument can be made that they tell us more than we really should know, but there it is: the previous administration had a program of ramping up cyberattacks against North Korea's missile tests. Now that that cat is out of the bag, it is useful to know that the program had limited success, and now the scenario comes down to this:

[President Trump] could order the escalation of the Pentagon’s cyber and electronic warfare effort, but that carries no guarantees. He could open negotiations with the North to freeze its nuclear and missile programs, but that would leave a looming threat in place. He could prepare for direct missile strikes on the launch sites, which Mr. Obama also considered, but there is little chance of hitting every target. He could press the Chinese to cut off trade and support, but Beijing has always stopped short of steps that could lead to the regime’s collapse.

In two meetings of Mr. Trump’s national security deputies in the Situation Room, the most recent on Tuesday, all those options were discussed, along with the possibility of reintroducing nuclear weapons to South Korea as a dramatic warning. Administration officials say those issues will soon go to Mr. Trump and his top national security aides.

They point out, toward the end of the article, that DJT tweeting "It won't happen" with regard to North Korea acquiring intercontinental missiles does nothing to enhance his range of options. As we saw a few short years ago in the Syrian situation, red lines causally tossed out by US presidents can have unsavory consequences.

While we're on the theme of Squirrel-Hair running his mouth and thereby upping the chaos level in our country, we see the latest evidence that Ben Sasse is the kind of principled and level-headed political figure we need more of in post-America. He released a statement laying out the stakes of tweeting that Obama tapped phones in Trump Tower without immediately substantiating such a claim:

Claims are one thing, but we need to deal in actual proof. If the president of the United State is to offer up the idea that wiretapping did occur, he should be ready with evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it looks like an attempt to distract from something else.

Politicians in D.C. should take note and model themselves after Ben Sasse.

“We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President’s allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health.”

Wiretapping is a serious claim. If it occurred, it needs to be dealt with, regardless of political party. If not, alleging such things should result in swift rebuke.

Identity politics doesn't play Peoria nearly as well as the jackboots assume:

ABC can’t be accused of underplaying When We Rise, its eight-hour drama miniseries chronicling the struggles and setbacks of LGBT activists in the 20th century.

Some thought the show, created by award-winning gay activist Dustin Lance Black and aired on four nights this week, goes out of its way to portray middle America as intolerant homophobes. When We Rise received saturation ad coverage during the Oscars ahead of its premiere this week, to the extent that one Twitter commentator joked that if he drunk alcohol every time he saw an advert for the show, he’d be dead by the end of the Academy Awards broadcast.

But part one of When We Rise flopped on Monday. As a result, ABC rescheduled Modern Family to run just before the second installment to boost ratings. However, viewership of the second part fell almost 1 million viewers from its premiere, netting an audience of only 2.05 million on Wednesday, which is pathetic for prime-time slot on a commercial TV network.

The final part of the miniseries is Friday night. (President Trump’s address to congress on Tuesday delayed the show’s transmission by a day.)

Doubtless there will be devotees of the show who will blame the president for interrupting the flow of When We Rise, which stars Guy Pearce, Mary Louise Parker and Whoopi Goldberg.

But its failure more likely stems from the fact that viewers don’t respond well to ‘virtue scheduling’ on TV. When We Rise at times resembled an infomercial for GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders). Even the New York Timesdidn’t give the show a rave—when the Grey Lady sniffs that a starry gay-rights drama “plays like a high-minded, dutiful educational video,” you know the show is in trouble.

The marketing was also disastrous, with Lance Black coming across as vocal and passionate about his series but never seeming to make up his mind whether he wanted to appeal to Trump voters or take them on with his new creation.

Good on ya, Elaine! The new Transportation Secretary halts funding for California's bullet train.