Trump Impeachment – Pros and Cons

The campaign to impeach President Trump began immediately upon his inauguration. That’s not an exaggeration. On January 20, 2017, The Washington Post reported on a movement to rally support for impeaching Donald Trump under the little known Emoluments Clause.

While that case never seemed to gain much traction, some of Trump’s recent actions with respect to the FBI have sparked growing calls for his impeachment. The effort is still in its early stages to be sure. But Trump’s impressive knack for making bad decisions, even on purely strategic grounds, seems likely to encourage it in the near future.

For this reason, the possibility is worth evaluating.

Pros of Impeachment

The first question to consider here is whether Trump does deserve to be impeached under the Constitution.

The answer is almost certainly yes. The trouble is that it is equally certain he will not be impeached on those grounds.

Grounds for Impeachment

There are a few different options one could choose as reasons for Trump’s impeachment. The most clear-cut case comes from Trump’s illegal Tomahawk missile strikes against the government of Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack. This episode plainly violated international law as an aggressive military action by the US. It was also clearly unauthorized under the constitution.

Of course, Presidents have routinely tested and pushed the limits of their war-making authority. However, the Syria strike stands out as even more indefensible than normal.

When President Obama carried out his various unconstitutional foreign policy actions–for example, drone strikes outside of war zones, the war against ISIS–he would generally argue that he actually did have authority under a resolution Congress passed back in 2001 after 9/11. That resolution authorized the president to go after Al Qaeda and associated forces. The problem was that the president effectively argued it justified going after groups that didn’t even exist at the time the resolution was passed, and in the case of ISIS, that it can be used to attack groups that are explicitly at war with Al Qaeda. In other words, the argument doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny, but because there is bipartisan support for all of these unconstitutional policies, it didn’t really get questioned.

With the Syria strike, however, that argument becomes entirely implausible. The Assad government plainly has nothing to do with Al Qaeda other than fight a war against them, and they have not made any effort to attack Americans during the conflict. So the 2001 AUMF can’t provide any cover at all. And since Trump didn’t bother to get any Congressional approval of the strike, the strike is clearly illegal. Such an abuse of authority would clearly constitute a legitimate grounds for impeachment.

On this score alone, it would be a positive thing for Trump to be impeached. As I argued in the case of James Comey’s termination, it tends to be a good thing when people that deserve to get fired actually do get fired. This is the same argument with a different antagonist.

Normalizing Impeachment

Over the 2016 and 2017 political cycle, Trump has been routinely accused of “normalizing ______” with his rhetoric. Depending on the article and event in question, that blank will be filled with something bad–bigotry, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, or something along these lines.

That said, it is often overlooked that Trump is also normalizing some distinctly positive things. For instance, a growing number of people now assume that the White House is probably lying as their default position. We don’t know if this skepticism will carry over effectively to the next president, but it’s safe to say Trump has given it a boost.

Similarly, it would not be a bad thing if impeaching politicians was normalized as well. I’m not sure how far we’d need to go back to find a president that didn’t commit an obvious impeachable offense. Given that abuse of power is so common, it would be useful if Congress grew accustomed to using the legal remedy the constitution prescribes to address it.

A Legitimate Reason?

While the Syria strikes offer a strong case for impeachment against Trump, that’s not the case that would actually end up being used.

Instead, at the moment, the leading candidate would appear to be the possibility that Trump tried to interfere with a federal investigation–specifically the investigation of former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

It’s still far too soon to say with any certainty whether there’s merit to this case. Right now, the main evidence we have is a memo read over the phone to a New York Times reporter, apparently alleging this influence. The trouble is that the memo is written by a former FBI Director who recently said under oath that no such influence occurred. Clearly, one part of this story doesn’t fit together, but we don’t know which.

In any case, we can be somewhat grateful that these are the types of issues that appear to be getting the most impeachment attention. This is good news because it actually could be a real offense. Trump wouldn’t be the first to do it, and it would not be the worst thing he’s done, but it is a problem if White House is trying to influence particular investigations.

Cons of Impeachment

The items above may seem to offer compelling reasons to be optimistic about Trump, there is one major downside that cancels it out.

What Comes Next?

If and when Trump gets removed from office, the job would go to VP Mike Pence. It’s very likely that Pence would be a more competent and politically savvy administrator than Trump has been. Unlike Trump so far, Pence might actually be able to secure passage on some of his policy ideas.

That almost sounds like a good thing. And indeed, if Pence had better ideas than Trump, it would be. But that’s not the case.

Pence is a fairly typical Republican in most respects. That means he’s bad on the drug war, wants to crack down on immigration, and opposes Obamacare–but does not understand the issue well enough to support a real solution to it. On these issues, he and Trump appear to be basically on the same unpleasant page.

But there is one issue where Pence was substantially worse than Trump during the campaign. That’s the question of Syria and Russia. During the VP debate last year, Pence confidently laid out a horrifying policy approach including safe zones and asserting “strong leadership”–which is a favorite American euphemism for belligerence.

At the time, this was substantially more belligerent than Trump. Since Trump’s Syria strike, the gap has definitely narrowed. Even so, Pence still seems a surer bet for confrontation with Russia and Syria than Trump. After all, Trump bombed Syria only after a tragedy gave him a pretext, however flimsy and unproven. Pence was advocating for outright confrontation even when no comparable pretext existed.

The bottom line is that if you’re worried about what policies Trump is going to implement, you should probably be even more worried about Pence. He advocates many of the same things, but he might be politically competent enough to actually implement them.

If this feels like a strange argument, it’s useful to consider the following analogy offered by economist Bob Murphy. If you could vote to decide who would run the Death Star, would you choose Jabba the Hutt or Darth Vader?

The upshot: Sometimes incompetence is a virtue.

Conclusion

Putting it all together, it’s tough to say where this leaves us. On the one hand, Trump really does deserve to be impeached. On the other hand, it might leave us in an even more precarious position than we are currently.

Trump Says Gravity Exists; Schumer, McCain Forcefully Dissent

Washington, DC — During a press conference Thursday, President Trump asserted that “gravity exists, and everyone knows it”.*

The controversial claim came in response to a broad question about the president’s views on science. The backlash from other politicians was swift and unrelenting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led the charge.

“These comments from the president are hardly a surprise. Indeed, gravity has been a central part of the trickle down physics theory that has captured the Republican Party, and devastated this country’s middle class,” said Schumer in a statement later on Thursday.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) also chimed in, “It’s just like this president to rush to judgment without all the facts and undermine the scientific community in the process. Let’s leave science to the scientists, and let Trump focus on manufacturing cheap ties in China.”

Even some leading Republicans ultimately joined in the chorus of denunciation. For example, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters he thought foreign actors could have influenced Trump’s remark. “All I’m saying is that Vladimir Putin has expressed a belief in gravity for many years–going all the way back to his days in the KGB. And now suddenly, Trump believes it too. That doesn’t seem like a coincidence,” McCain said.

It’s unclear how long it will take the embattled Trump administration to get past this latest controversy and back to the critical work of re-escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan and issuing new unconstitutional executive orders.

On Twitter, Trump downplayed the story and said it was just another example of the “unbelievably dishonest news media trying to SABOTAGE our movement! Not Good!”

 

*Note: This a satirical post. All the quotes described above are fictitious.

Washington Post Cites Joke As Factual Evidence for Russiagate

This might be a new low.

The Story

The Washington Post obtained a transcript and a recording of a private conversation among high-ranking House Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan. The portion of the conversation that has been released is mostly about Ukraine, but it also discusses Russia’s efforts to influence Ukrainian politics and US politics, albeit briefly.

Specifically, near the end of the conversation, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the following, as quoted by the Post.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.”

Written like that, it seems like a flat accusation of collusion by a high-ranking politician, who generally defends Trump in public. Sounds like a huge story of at least hypocrisy, if nothing else.

The problem is that the Post also thankfully released the actual transcript. And in the transcript, that’s not how it appears at all. This is exactly what the transcript has, including relevant comments before and after (all ellipses and other notes are from the original):

McCarthy: [unintelligible]…I’ll GUARANTEE you that’s what it is.

[Unintelligible]

McCarthy: The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp research that they had on Trump.

McCarthy: laughs

[Crosstalk]

[House Speaker Paul] Ryan: The Russian’s hacked the DNC…

McHenry: …to get oppo…

Ryan: …on Trump and like delivered it to…to who?

[Unintelligible]

McCarthy: There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.

Ryan: This is an off the record…[laughter]…NO LEAKS…[laughter]…alright?!

[Laughter]

Ryan: This is how we know we’re a real family here.

So in the immediate context of this purportedly serious accusation, the conversation is interrupted by bouts of laughter five times, once before and four times after. The lawmakers seem to be having a grand time.

Now, in any normal situation, if you read a statement that is both preceded and promptly followed by laughter, you would probably assume the statement was a joke–or perhaps that the assembled audience was simultaneously watching funny cat videos on their phones.

But to The Washington Post, this precise same sequence of events is now being adduced as the latest damning piece of evidence to support a conclusion they’ve long since settled on. Not only is Trump clearly a puppet of Vladimir Putin, but the high-ranking Republican leaders know about it and are defending him anyway. The humanity!

If we assume no deliberate deception on the part of The Washington Post, then this is a textbook example of confirmation bias. They took a piece of information and then interpreted it in a way that conformed to, and indeed strengthened, their preconceived understanding of what is true–that Russia has covertly interfered in US politics and compromised Donald Trump.

To be fair, my immediate reaction was also an example of confirmation bias, just in the opposite direction. I dislike Trump for my own reasons, but I’m still not convinced of the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story, let alone the Trump-is-Putin’s-puppet narrative. I’m open to being persuaded; I just haven’t read anything convincing so far. So when I read an extreme assertion on these matters, skepticism is my default response.  Upon further review, I would argue the context in this particular case favors this less alarmist interpretation.

Of course, The Washington Post could go a long ways toward clearing up the issue if they released the actual audio of the conversation, which is in their possession. Let’s hope that happens.

Trump Shares ISIS Intel with Russia: Hype vs. Reality

President Trump reportedly shared sensitive intelligence information on ISIS with the Russians during a high-level meeting last week. Since it’s a story involving Trump, Russia, and ISIS–offering a savory mix of scandal, Cold War, and terrorism–it promptly became the biggest story to start the week.

The Story

Citing anonymous US officials, The Washington Post reported earlier this week that President Trump shared “highly classified” intelligence on ISIS with the Russians when he met with them last week. The intelligence was that ISIS has been considering using a laptop bomb on an airplane in a future attack. Given that the US recently instituted a laptop ban on incoming flights from the Middle East, this probably didn’t come as a shock to the Russians (or anyone else).

But while the intelligence itself is not that interesting, the controversy is over the fact that this intelligence was gathered by a US ally using a source in the region. And according to the Post, Trump also disclosed the name of the city the source was located in, which is the kind of thing that doesn’t usually get shared unless it needs to be.

In response, White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster downplayed the reportand indicated that any details that were shared would already be accessible from “open-source reporting”.  We can’t be sure, but this phrasing would appear to suggest the city named in the conversation wasn’t very specific–most likely if a source has high-level contacts with ISIS leaders in Syria, they’re located in its de facto capital of Raqqa. While this would make sense, obviously the White House has an interest in minimizing the story just as the Post’s sources had an interest in promoting it. Both versions should be treated with some skepticism.

In any case, the story has become another major controversy for the Trump Administration. The nice, and unique, thing about this story is that both sides basically agree that the underlying event occurred–namely, sharing intelligence with the Russians; the dispute is largely over whether what transpired is a big deal or not. Here’s my take:

No Laws Were Broken

While some outlets were quick to cite this story as the latest impeachable offense by the Trump Administration, there is a problem with that narrative. It’s virtually certain that no laws were broken–which the original Post piece also concedes.

This may seem strange given that purportedly classified material was disseminated to a third party. But this is the curious nature of the President’s broad declassification powers. From a legal standpoint, the president can more or less decide to declassify anything he chooses, and this happens automatically. In general, if the president talks about classified material openly, it ceases to be classified. As a result, the President can’t really commit a crime by sharing classification in the same way that other officials can.

Reminder: Russia is at War with ISIS Too

One of the most remarkable aspects of The Washington Post story was its extensive speculation on how Russia might use the intelligence it received. Here are some relevant excerpts:

But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats…

“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team…

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it…

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

Given that another part of the story explicitly refers to Russia as an “adversary”, it’s not hard to see what’s being implied here. Now that the Russians know some information source in ISIS, they could find it and disrupt it–to help ISIS! The Washington Post is clever enough to not to state this last clause outright, but it’s a conclusion they go out of their way to encourage.

The trouble is that this suggestion is more than a bit crazy. In fact, Russia is at war with ISIS. Readers will recall that Russia entered the Syrian War to strengthen the Syrian government, and the strongest forces working against the Syrian government are the Islamist factions concentrated in northwest Syria, which are dominated by the local Al Qaeda affiliate, and ISIS, which is concentrated in eastern Syria.

There is no reason to believe the Syrian government is backing one of the main organizations that threatens its survival. Similarly, it would make no sense for Russia to expend significant resources and political capital by militarily backing the Assad regime and then simultaneously provide assistance to one of its major opponents in Syria. Fighting on multiple, conflicting sides of the same war is America’s policy in Syria, but there is no indication that Russia is pursuing a comparable strategy.

In other words, Russia and the US are both at war with ISIS. It’s one of the few issues these two governments actually agree on publicly at the moment.

Of course, one may still find it problematic that Trump haphazardly shared potentially sensitive intelligence information. But it is extraordinarily improbable that the Russians will use it to help one of their primary enemies.

(Also worth noting, The Washington Post actually does concede that Russia is at war with ISIS at one point in the piece. It just left in all the other quotes that cast Russia’s possible actions in the most adversarial light.)

Will Allies Still Share Intelligence with the US?

The Washington Post suggests that this latest revelation might make other allies reluctant to collaborate or share intelligence with the US in the future. This is a reasonable concern.

The episode does lend some additional credibility to the idea that the US has a loose cannon at the helm. But the magnitude of the potential harm caused by this disclosure seems to be blown out of proportion.

Remember, in this case, the US shared intelligence information about a common enemy; all three countries, the US, its ally (which subsequent reports named as Israel), and Russia are all opposed to ISIS. ISIS may not be all parties’ top priority in Syria, but they are still basically on the same side in this part of the war. This fact limits the potential harm to the ally and thus also reduces the probability of any ally having a major falling out with the US over it.

By contrast if the US president had randomly shared Israeli intelligence on Hezbollah with Iran for some reason, that would be a much bigger issue for allied intelligence sharing. But given the facts we know currently, this particular episode seems unlikely to cause a major shake-up to the status quo.

Conclusion

It’s a pretty low bar, but this latest installment of the Trump-Russia controversy had more substance than normal, and competing narratives on the subject had more points of agreement than we’ve grown accustomed to. That said, The Washington Post’s take on the story seemed to clearly inflate the risks and significance of Trump’s actions beyond what the facts warranted.

How Paid Parental Leave Accidentally Promotes Inequality

In honor of Mother’s Day, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg called for a new public policy to limit economic opportunities and choices for women.

Naturally, she did not phrase it quite like that. But among other policy asks in her pronouncement, Sandberg called for a mandatory paid family leave policy. The primary goal of such a policy is to help women. Unfortunately, the economic implications of the policy, if enacted, will be as I described above–reducing opportunities and choices for women.*

This unpleasant outcome is likely to be a surprise to many. In the US, there is overwhelming popular support for implementing some type of paid family leave policy. According to a recent Pew Research survey, fully 82% of Americans believe mothers should receive paid leave after having a child, while 69% believe fathers should get such leave.

No doubt, the supporters of such policies, like Sandberg, have the best of intentions. They probably have never been confronted with the fact that those policies might harm the people they want to lift up.

This stark disconnect between goals and outcomes makes paid family leave an ideal policy for exploring and understanding the unintended consequences of economic intervention. Let’s go through it.

The Basics

As the name implies, a mandatory paid family leave policy works by requiring employers give their employees a certain minimum amount time off upon having a child. The policy will stipulate what rate of pay will be given during leave and the maximum number of weeks that can be taken. Employers must allow employees to resume their jobs at the end of the leave period.

The source of payments during the leave period will vary depending on the policy. In some countries that have these policies, the employers are forced to foot the cost directly–making it similar to how vacation pay is handled. In other places, employees are forced to pay into a fund run by the government and then benefits for everyone are paid out of that pool. This model is similar to how Social Security works.

A final source of variation in the policies is who is eligible for benefits and when. In some policy variants, only women are eligible for parental leave or may be eligible for a longer duration than men. Additionally, in other policies, paid leave would apply in other circumstances besides having a child–perhaps military deployment of a spouse or taking care of a sick relative.

These different leave justifications will have economic consequences of their own. However, to keep things simple, we’ll focus on parental leave policies for this analysis.

Like Products, Jobs Have Trade-offs

For economic purposes, it’s helpful to analyze a job in much the same way we look at a major consumer product. Let’s take a phone as an example.

When buying a phone, there are several factors to consider–price, speed, screen quality, camera quality, OS, battery life, appearance, weight, and so on. On many of these criteria, almost everyone will agree what is better. All else equal, people will prefer a faster phone, a better camera, and a longer battery life. The problem is that all these features have trade-offs. If you want a faster phone, you’ll probably need to pay more. If you want a longer battery life, then you might also have a heavier phone to accommodate the bigger battery.

While that may have seemed like a large tangent, similar observations can be made about jobs. Here, there are probably even more factors to consider: salary, location, growth prospects, interest in field, vacation time, average hours per week, health benefits, and parental leave benefits (if any), among others. Generally speaking, most people prefer a job that pays more, offers more vacation time, and requires less time at work (perhaps because it’s part time or just has fewer late nights). But again, there are trade-offs.

As a personal example, my previous job provided 5 weeks of paid vacation and a multi-month sabbatical option. The downside was that the salary was lower and we were expected to work 60+ hour weeks on a somewhat regular basis. For people that really like to travel, that mixture of compensation and obligations works out perfectly. Others prefer the higher salary and more consistent year-round workload that is offered by competing employers in my field, even if that generally means less vacation.

The reason these types of trade-offs exist in employment is because they represent a cost to the employer. When an employer hires someone for their services, they’re paying much more than just a salary–they also have to consider payroll taxes, health benefits, vacation, 401k benefits, and so on. Hypothetically, suppose Employee A wants a $20,000 health insurance plan with $80,000 in salary and other compensation, and Employee B wants a $30,000 health plan and was willing to accept a $70,000 salary. If the tax implications of both arrangements were the same, the employer should be indifferent between these setups.**

The Cost of Parental Leave

Parental leave also has a cost for employers. The cost of this type of benefit will depend on the length of the leave offered and how easy it is to find someone else to cover the job during an absence. Employers might have to pay fellow employees overtime to cover the extra work or even hire a contractor. The more unique and essential the job is, the more expensive it will be to grant a long leave. Then, once the total raw cost of the leave is determined, the employer has to estimate the probability that a prospective employee is actually going to take advantage of this benefit in the near future.

This probability consideration is what leads to the unintended consequences. By default, most employers probably are not going to ask awkward family planning questions in a job interview. Instead, they are more likely to estimate the probability, consciously or not, based on demographics.

Thus, all else equal, a 20-something female who recently graduated college would be viewed as much more likely have a child in the near future than a 45-year-old male. In turn, that means the expected cost (probability x raw cost) of the leave benefit for the 20-something female is higher than the expected cost for the male. Since employers are generally willing to pay a certain all-in cost, they might respond to this circumstance by choosing the male employee (because he’s cheaper) or by hiring the female at a lower salary (to compensate for the higher leave cost). Either outcome clearly leaves the female candidate at a disadvantage, through no fault of her own.

This outcome is not ideal, but it is the way that trade-offs work in compensation. A faster phone means a higher price. A longer or more likely leave benefit means a more expensive employee.

This then leads to a perverse outcome. In general, the same people that advocate most for mandatory parental leave are also the ones that are concerned about the gender pay gap–the idea that men make more than women in work place. Ironically, mandatory parental leave policies would have the effect of exacerbating any gap that currently exists.

Not Just a Theory

Above we traced through the economic implications of paid parental leave on the employer’s decision-making process. The effects we predicted are those that standard economic theory would suggest. They are logical but also a bit abstract.

Fortunately, in this case, we don’t need to rest our case on theory alone. Since the United States is (thankfully) late to the game on implementing mandatory parental leave policies, we have the benefit of observing their effects in other countries. The results are broadly in line with what the theory would predict.

For example, in some countries, the mandatory parental leave policies have been structured to offer longer leave times for women. Based on our analysis above, we know this would also increase the effective leave cost of women versus men, putting women at an even greater disadvantage relative to men when competing for work. Thus, the following observation from The Washington Post should come as no surprise:

Instead, decades of experience shows that long leave for women only, understandably, has made private-sector employers reluctant to hire, retain and promote them. That’s why in Sweden — which from 1974 to 1995 offered only women generous maternity leave — most women wound up working part time in the public sector and are still juggling the traditional role of primary caregiver at home.

This disparate outcome can be reduced somewhat if the leave policy offers the same time to men and women. However, since women are still more likely to actually take leave, the expected leave cost for women under most arrangements will still be higher.***

The New York Times found a similar outcome when reviewing the impact of US’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed back in 1993. The FMLA mandates employers give 12 weeks of unpaid leave to men or women in response to certain life events, such as having a child. After the law was implemented, women were 5 percent more likely to remain employed (as the law requires employers to retain workers after leave), but were 8 percent less likely to get promotions. Again, women get stuck in lower-paying work than they would be otherwise.

Unfortunately, this is how economic intervention often works out in practice. Policies designed to combat inequality end up promoting it.

A Better Solution: Choice

Now, if you are a woman who is in the workforce and also planning to have kids, it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that you’d be willing to sacrifice a higher salary to have a generous paid leave benefit. It’s possible many men who are planning to have a family would happily make the same trade-off. If everyone in society had those exact same priorities, then implementing a mandatory paid parental leave policy would do little harm.

The trouble is that there are many women (and men) who would not opt to make this trade-off. Such people may just be heavily focused on their careers or may not be planning to have kids at all. If they are forced to be eligible for paid leave by the passage of a new statute, then they will be made worse off as a result. Women who have no interest in taking a paid leave of absence may get treated like a flight risk anyway and find it more difficult to advance their careers. And even if this doesn’t occur, they’ll still be forced to directly pay for a benefit they have no interest in taking in the form of a lower salary.

This is the consequence of implementing a one-size-fits-all solution when there really is more than one size. Some people, maybe even a majority, will get a solution that fits them–but everyone else suffers.

A better solution is one where no employee is forced to make a trade-off they didn’t agree to, and employers are free to design leave options as they see fit. This outcome is ideal because it would allow each individual choose the mix of benefits they most prefer, and young women wouldn’t automatically be adjudged a flight risk from the minute they cross the threshold.

A critic might charge that employees seeking generous paid leave packages simply won’t be able to find it in the US, absent a law requiring it. However, economics suggests otherwise. At least some employers–particularly those that have many employees performing the same types of job and can thus easily minimize the cost of leave–will have a strong incentive to voluntarily offer generous leave policies and flexible schedules to cater to current or future working mothers and fathers. By offering generous leave, such firms might be able to economize on overall compensation cost and gain a competitive advantage. Indeed, this isn’t just theoretical speculation–several big name employers have taken this path.

This ideal solution where employee and employer choice is maximized is not that far off from the model that prevails in the US today. The unpaid FMLA reduces this freedom, and a few states have adopted their own paid family leave policies that reduce it further for their residents. But aside from that, the US is lagging far behind most of the developed world. And on this issue, that’s a decidedly good thing.

*To be fair, mandatory paid leave wasn’t the only harmful policy Sandberg called for in her post. She also advocated raising the minimum wage (which disproportionately harms the poorest workers) and vaguely asked for affordable child care, without offering specifics on that front.

**In reality, the tax implications favor employers offering more compensation in the form of health coverage rather than salary.

***I say “most arrangements” here because the NYT piece also discusses an interesting policy modification called the “daddy quota” in Norway that tries to directly incentivize men to take time off and correct for unequal utilization. Apparently policy has changed utilization, and has worked in that sense. To whatever extent that’s true, we would expect Norway’s paid family regime to produce less inequality among men and women. However, the policy would still harm Norwegians who would prefer a higher salary or don’t plan to have children.

The Many Upsides of Comey’s Termination

President Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey has sparked a massive political backlash, and the White House has scrambled to come up with several different narratives to explain the decision.

Given this reaction, one might assume that the Comey termination was an extremely harmful and unjust decision–even by the standards of the Trump Administration. However, a more sober analysis of the situation suggests nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Comey’s firing should offer something for almost everyone to like. Let’s go through it.

Comey Deserved to Be Fired

First things first. After his handling of the Clinton email probe in 2016, James Comey was one of the most eminently fireable people in the Executive Branch.* And there are many different reasons one might agree with this statement, regardless of one’s partisan affiliation.

Volunteering Information on a Pending Investigation

One problem with Comey’s conduct was the infamous letter he sent to Congress a week before the election, informing them that the FBI may have cause to reopen the investigation into Clinton based on an unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner. This was a breach of the FBI’s general policy not to comment on pending investigations–a policy exists for a very good reason.

Announcing that someone is being investigated by the FBI casts suspicion on them and harms their reputation. If the investigation subsequently turns up empty-handed, then an innocent person had their name sullied for no legitimate reason. Even if the FBI issues a follow-up statement, as they did in Clinton’s case after this letter, noting that no relevant information was found and the investigation was fruitless, this does not undo the initial harm. Invariably, the initial accusation will draw more attention than the discovery that, in fact, there was no story in the first place.

As a brief tangent, this is the same phenomenon that occurs in the news media when they run a sensational, belligerent story, only to have it roundly debunked in a few days’ time. In some cases, the initial story will prove so obviously erroneous that the Times or the Post will actually issue a correction or editor’s note to walk the story back to reality. But that only occurs after the original bogus story has been read and shared thousands of times. Not surprisingly, the initial accusation makes for a much more interesting read than the realistic correction.

Back to Comey and Clinton, there can be no suitable justification for commenting on the pending investigation just before the election. That breach of protocol certainly offers another reason to support the FBI getting new leadership. Indeed, it is also one of the reasons cited by Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his memorandum that implicitly called for the firing of James Comey.

Attacking the Rule of Law

For people that still believe in the rule of law–the idea that laws should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, political connections, etc.–Comey failed in two important respects. First, he failed to recommend charges against Secretary Clinton despite evidence–which he himself acknowledged–that she did violate the relevant laws and regulations. While this outcome was disappointing, it was also par for the course. With the exception of whistleblowers, the government rarely prosecutes its own for wrongdoing.

But Comey’s offense against the rule of law was not limited to the fact that he did not recommend charges. In his extraordinary explanation for letting Clinton off, Comey’s primary argument was not that Clinton was innocent or that the evidence was insufficient. Comey made it quite clear that all the normal elements needed to prosecute were present in this case (albeit, not for a terribly severe crime). Here’s what he said at the time (emphasis added):

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

…

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, Comey said that evidence exists that the law was broken, and in similar circumstances, a different person who committed these actions would be subject to some type of sanctions. But in the case of the former secretary of state, no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case. It’s difficult to imagine a more explicit repudiation of the rule of law. He might as well have said, this person is not being prosecuted because they are a high-level official.

On the one hand, this level of honesty was refreshing I suppose. But it also sets a bad precedent when the nation’s top law enforcement official rejects a foundational principle of our justice system.

Overstepping the Role of the FBI

Though minor by comparison, another misstep by Comey was presenting such a detailed briefing to the public on the Clinton probe in the first place. This was another issue raised in Rosenstein’s memo on the conduct of the now-former FBI Director. Rosenstein makes the case well (emphasis added):

The director [Comey] was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

…But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts.

In short, the July press conference was inappropriate for multiple reasons. And while, based on my own analysis, I think there is a compelling case that Clinton should have indeed been prosecuted, Rosenstein makes an excellent point here. Given that the FBI decided the case was not worth pursuing, it clearly is not correct for Comey to defame the subject of the investigation, Clinton, anyway.

Putting it all together, it’s abundantly clear that Comey made some serious mistakes handling the highest profile investigation of 2016. Notwithstanding anything else he’s overseen at the FBI, this should be enough to justify a change in leadership.

Giving Independence and Credibility to the Trump-Russia Probe

Another reason to support the Comey termination is that it gives the chance to enhance the credibility and independence of the Russian probe.

This may sound strange at first, since two of the popular theories for why Trump fired Comey is that Comey had recently requested more resources for the Russia investigation or that he was “getting too close” to the truth. How would firing such an individual actually help that investigation?

Well, the problem with Comey investigating Trump is that so many Democrats see Comey as the reason Trump got elected. And since Comey’s actions were highly unusual, it’s not hard to understand why Democrats might assume Comey was in Trump’s camp the whole time.

Whether that’s actually true or not does not matter. What matters is that a significant portion of the American people and American politicians view Comey through that lens.

This, in turn, has major ramifications for the credibility of the Trump-Russia investigation. If the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing while under Comey’s leadership, it’s a virtual certainty that many Democrats would write it off as just another partisan outcome–and the Trump-Russia story would live to fight another day.

However, if that same outcome is produced under an FBI Director that the Democrats actually approve of, there’s a chance it might finally put that story to rest.

Alternatively, the firing of Comey has sparked new calls for a special prosecutor to perform the Russia investigation instead. Provided Democrats and Republicans both signed off anew on such a special prosecutor, that would similarly enhance the credibility of the investigation.

Personally, I think it’s unlikely that Comey was directly influencing the scope or direction of the Russia probe to help or hurt Trump. I’m also of the opinion that the Trump-Russia story is probably much ado about nothing.

That said, if US politics is ever to return to something like normal, the investigation needs to be carried out, and it needs to be led by someone who has respect and credibility from both sides. That way, there is a chance the outcome of the investigation will be taken seriously–either to justify charges against the Trump Administration if warranted or just to finally move on to a more useful criticism of the Trump Administration.

This outcome was extremely unlikely under Comey. Now, it is at least a possibility.

Derailing the Trump Train

Another benefit of Trump’s decision to fire Comey is that he’ll be stuck dealing with fallout from this controversy for at least the next couple weeks. That should make it more difficult for Congress or the President to achieve anything of substance during that time. Since many of Trump’s domestic and foreign policy plans fall somewhere between useless and harmful, it’s a positive development to see another obstacle in the path.

From a libertarian perspective, the exception to this general observation is that this controversy will also delay Trump’s efforts to reduce taxes on everyone and cut regulations on the finance industry. The details on such policies are still not finalized, but the most recent information from the Trump Administration suggests that their reform plans in these areas would reduce the tax and regulatory burden on the American people. In theory, they are the sort of things libertarians would want to see enacted.

The problem is that the US economy is very late in the business cycle, and several trends suggest a recession should occur in the near future. This possibility creates severe political downsides for enacting positive economic reforms before the next crash.

Even today, you can still hear people (ahem, Hillary Clinton) asserting that the Bush-era tax cuts helped cause the Great Recession. Never mind that there is no economic basis for this claim, it has somehow become part of the accepted wisdom anyway. The other part of the Great Recession story is that it was caused by government deregulation–specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This claim is also belied by the actual history, but nearly everyone accepts it as true. And since the problem was misdiagnosed, the cure for the Great Recession was a draconian expansion of financial regulation that we’re stuck with today.

Of course, it may be inevitable that the next recession will also be blamed on irrelevant policies instead of the primary causes. Still, it’d probably be best if Trump’s few useful economic reforms wait until after the next recession is well underway–otherwise, they risk becoming the scapegoats.

It Does Not Matter Why Trump Fired Him

In those rare cases when the right thing happens in US politics, it almost never happens for the right reasons. For example, when Democratic politicians (correctly) came out against Trump’s travel ban, it was plainly not because they suddenly cared about the well-being of Yemenis affected by it. Instead, they saw an opportunity to create a backlash against Trump and, largely by happenstance, ended up on the right side of the issue.**

So it is with the Comey termination. We may never really know what caused Trump to fire Comey. Perhaps Comey was getting too close to the truth, or perhaps he made a poor joke about The Apprentice. But even without knowing why the decision was made, we can still make a reasonable decision about whether, on balance, it is a good thing.

Based on the points listed above, it clearly appears to be a positive development.

*To be fair, this is partly due to the fact that Comey is one of the few executive holdovers from the Obama Administration, and Trump’s appointees haven’t had nearly as much time to commit fireable offenses of their own. We can rest assured that they are rapidly building their portfolio.

**Of course, there are some laudable exceptions here. For instance, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy was relatively good on Yemen (opposing Saudi arms sales) and also opposed Trump’s travel ban.

Remembering the Devastation of the Korean War

As tensions between North Korea and the US remain at their highest levels in years, it’s worth recalling the brutality of the Korean War.

The Story

Over at The Intercept, Mehdi Hasan has a new article that provides some stark facts and observations on the Korean War. This war often gets little attention in most renderings of American history, but it’s not for a lack of casualties. As Hasan notes, the Korean War was a full-scale conflict. It killed an estimated 20% of the North Korean population, or 3 million people. The US relied heavily on carpet-bombing in the conflict and participated in a number of war crimes, a few of which Hasan highlights in the piece. Read the full story here:

Why Do North Koreans Hate Us? One Reason — They Remember the Korean War

Why It Matters

None of this history justifies Kim Jong Un’s depredations against his own people, and by itself, it doesn’t tell us much in terms of a path forward on US-North Korean relations. However, it does give us some insight into the mentality of the North Korean people and leadership. They are certainly paranoid about the prospect of a war with the US. But that paranoia is, in part, a product of actual history, not just propaganda.

The casualty figures from the Korean War are difficult to comprehend from an American perspective. In modern times, a 20% casualty rate in the US would be roughly equivalent to wiping out all residents of California and Texas (> 60 million people). Given that the US government launched multiple wars and dramatically expanded its security apparatus in response to a much smaller casualty count from 9/11 (~3,000 people or .001% of the US population), it’s horrifying to imagine what the response would be to a calamity on the scale of North Korea.

All of this is worth keeping in mind as we read about the news from North Korea. Officially, the Korean War never actually ended, and the memory of that conflict is still likely to influence the actions of North Korea today.