I’ve had questions from a number of you about why there’s been so little mainstream media pick up of Seymour Hersh’s claim that the U.S. destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline last year. As a factual matter, I think it’s highly unlikely that this is true. But my point here isn’t to dispute the report. People know that Hersh is one of the most high profile and celebrated investigative reporters of the last half century. So how is it he’s suddenly seen as an unreliable source of information?

On this point I think I can shed some light.

The White House has congratulated Rick Scott for confessing his desire to destroy Social Security and seeking forgiveness.

On Wednesday we did a TPM Inside Briefing with economist and Times columnist Paul Krugman. I already shared with you the portion of the discussion in which we talked about Democrats’ options for extraordinary/heroic measures to avert a U.S. credit default if House Republicans force the issue. But we covered a lot of other important ground directly relevant to the biggest news stories of the day — the financial viability of Social Security (and Medicare) and the sustainability of the aggregate federal debt in particular.

A substantial percentage of the U.S. federal debt (about a quarter of it) has been run up in just the last three years — largely in response to the COVID pandemic crisis. Is the scale of the federal debt sustainable? Does it require drastic action? Krugman’s answer was basically, no. There’s no crisis. Despite what you hear, it’s not unsustainable at all.

On Social Security, same thing. At some point in the future — probably about a dozen years from now — Social Security will need more revenue to cover all the benefits of the people currently in retirement under Social Security. At that point, we’ll have a simple decision on whether to raise taxes to cover those benefits or cut the benefits. It’s not really an economics decision. Both are totally doable in macro-economic terms. It’s really a values and politics question. Which is more important? Preserving the benefits of retirement beneficiaries (and others covered by Social Security) or preventing higher taxes on upper-income earners? You don’t need to be a PhD economist to decide this question.

Critically, does the problem get worse the longer we put off these decisions? Again, no. All the claims to the contrary are a kind of bums’ rush to force one of the answers over the other — cuts as opposed to taxes.

All these questions and answers about debt, Social Security, Medicare, and the debt ceiling were highly clarifying for me. And I suspect they will be for you as well. If you’re a member, join me after the jump for the full TPM Inside Briefing with Paul Krugman.

I had heard a bit about this in discussions of inaccurate information from AI engines like ChatGPT. But hearing it directly from TPM Readers AT (a research librarian) and JC brought it into sharper relief for me. Inaccurate information can mean a lot of things. You can say Thomas Jefferson died in 1846 when in fact he died in 1826. Other inaccuracies are more complex and pernicious.

Not quite in Santos territory. But close. Local NewsChannel 5 in Nashville has the goods on freshman Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) who turns out not to be an economist, a cop, a CEO, or an international sex trafficking expert or seemingly have any of his degrees.

Two Idaho legislators have introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to administer an mRNA COVID vaccine in the state of Idaho. “A person may not provide or administer a vaccine developed using messenger ribonucleic acid technology for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state,” reads the text of the proposed legislation.

According to an email sent out to supporters a few minutes ago by his wife Gisele, John Fetterman last night checked himself into Walter Reed Medical Center to seek care for clinical depression.

Artificial Intelligence has jumped to the head of the line as the politico-cultural Rorschach test of the moment ever since OpenAI’s ChatGPT application was released for public use. Views are extreme in both directions. I’m open-minded, cautious but mostly indifferent. But in recent articles I’ve noticed two consistent themes. The various AI engines being rushed to service seem to a) frequently provide incorrect information and b) often demonstrate what in humans we would consider disturbing personality characteristics.

We talked to economist and Times columnist Paul Krugman today in a TPM Inside Briefing. The full interview will be available for members tomorrow. But the biggest surprise for me came when we spoke about the debt ceiling. I think most of us assume that minting trillion dollars coins or invoking the 14th amendment amount to a kind of politics nerd fanfic — cool and probably the right thing to do but not at all things that are actually going to happen. Krugman told TPM he assumes that that’s exactly what will happen. They’ll deny it till the last moment. But if it comes down to the wire and the White House has to choose between default and one of several legal stratagems to save the full-faith-and-credit hostage from the House radicals’ firing squad they’ll do just that.

To be clear, he didn’t say he was sure or that it was guaranteed. But the fact that it’s his working assumption came as a pretty big surprise to me. He also points so much less discussed strategies as ones that may be more likely than boffo ideas like the trillion dollar coin.

Today Nikki Haley formally announces her thoroughly hopeless campaign for the 2024 Presidential nomination. Give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s running for Vice President. Ron DeSantis has gained most attention in recent days for his continued unwillingness to engage Donald Trump’s mounting attacks. Meanwhile every other conceivable contender for the nomination remains mired in low single-digit support. It’s hard to know what to make of this incipient primary campaign, not least because it’s so unprecedented in modern American politics to have a defeated former President running to be President again. But if we step back from the details we can see a clarifying picture. There is no candidate in the race whose campaign isn’t entirely about Donald Trump. And that is probably the best reason to think Donald Trump will be the eventual nominee.