Stability vs Prosperity and Sovereignty

It appears that Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, prefers stability at the expense of British prosperity and national sovereignty. He said last Tuesday that

uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the coming referendum on Britain’s future in Europe is already being felt in financial markets, and that a vote in favor of leaving could cause a short-term hit to the wider economy.

A possible departure represents “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability,” Mr. Carney said, with potential consequences for Britain’s balance of payments with the rest of the world, its housing market, foreign investment and its banks.

“It is a risk to domestic financial stability, and it has some potential to amplify pre-existing risks to financial stability[.]”

Of course things will be turbulent during the transition from EU member, subject to lots of EU regulation that runs contrary to British law or what the Brits would prefer to be British law (things like being required to spend British taxpayer money as benefits to non-citizens and to non-citizen family members not even resident in Great Britain—Prime Minister David Cameron’s tentative agreement with the EU is only a temporary measure).

Don’t want the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum? Then Carney should get behind the exit and reduce the uncertainty.

What would the British get from leaving the EU? Quite a lot. London’s financial district would be free to operate on free market principles, not EU rules. Great Britain’s tax laws would be set according to what’s good for Brits and British business and for attracting foreign businesses and investment, not according to protecting precious continental jurisdictions from the evils of tax competition. Great Britain’s private enterprises would be free to operate in accordance with British law and not EU regulation.

What would the British lose from leaving the EU? Those impediments. Not much else.

Staying in the EU would provide a strong measure of economic stability; those rules are established and well understood. But that stability is only intermediate; the EU will dissolve in the foreseeable future. The current refugee flow crisis is not the threat, though, for all the press it’s getting. No, the threat is exactly what the British would be avoiding if they succeed in leaving: economic dissolution. That threat was made manifest by the Panic of 2008 and emphasized by the Greek default crisis. These exposed the utterly differing and irreconcilable economic philosophies of the constituent members.

The transition ensuing from that dissolution will be far more destructive than any sneezes from a Brexit in the next couple of years.

The Need for a Republican President

The need is starkly illustrated by a couple of developments involving cases, the Supreme Court, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.

One development is this:

Dow Chemical Co had agreed to pay $835 million to settle a class-action case rather than risk an appeal without the conservative justice.

The other is this:

The state Rifle and Pistol Association decided against filing a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case fearing the conservative Scalia’s death will make winning the case virtually impossible.

[Rifle and Pistol Association President and National Rifle Association board member, Tom] King said his lawyers advised that going forward could damage the case because the High Court at the very least would likely deliver a split 4-4 decision that would leave the law in place.

This puts a very high premium on electing a Republican president, so we have a good chance of nominating and confirming a conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

Don’t Let the Door

…hit you in the fanny on the way out.

A University of Texas Dean [Fritz Steiner, Dean of the Texas School of Architecture] said Thursday he’s leaving the school to pursue a different job in large part because of the new Texas law that will allow concealed firearms in public college classrooms.

And

Steiner said he’s not anti-guns, but doesn’t want them in the halls of higher education. Texas faculty have worried allowing guns could have a chilling effect on academic freedom and frank discussions in classrooms.

Because he and his special snowflakes are zealously opposed to opposing, even merely differing, opinions, and they project their own response techniques to disagreements onto others. After all, academic freedom and frank discussions mean “do it my way” and “think like I do.” Just look at all the faculty-supported “safe spaces” and “free speech zones” Academia have sprouted all over our colleges and universities. See, also, the Melissa Clicks of academe. That Click ultimately was fired for her abuses is newsworthy only because of the unusualness of such abuses being recognized.

The VA and the IG

I’ve disparaged Inspectors General as not being truly independent—they work directly for the boss of the organization they’re presumably inspecting and on which they’re engaging in oversight. I’ve also said that the Secretary of the Veterans Administration should be terminated for cause. Here’s an example of the particularly incestuous relationship between Veterans Administration MFWICs and their IGs and the damage that relationship can do.

A top government watchdog on Thursday accused the central agency tasked with holding Veterans Affairs accountable of dropping the ball—by failing to properly investigate whistleblower claims of secret wait lists at Shreveport, LA, and Chicago hospitals where thousands of veterans languished up to 15 months without care.

Further, Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner said the VA’s Office of Inspector General even tried to “discredit the whistleblowers” who brought the allegations by focusing on a narrow aspect of the case.

And

[T]he focus and tone of the OIG investigations appear to be intended to discredit the whistleblowers by focusing on the word “secret,” rather than reviewing the access to care issues identified by the whistleblowers and in the OSC referrals.

The OSC’s letter and reports can be seen here. (Note: osc.gov is handing out a taking too long to respond error as I schedule this yesterday.  Make of that what you will.)

Veteranos administratio delende est.

The 2nd Amendment and Campuses

I confess to mixed feelings about mixing children, alcohol, and guns, and that’s the mix on college campuses that’s allowed under Texas’ new concealed carry law.

However.

UT Austin President Gregory Fenves is engaging in a naked, Obama-esque effort by to ignore the law through made-up excuses.

The law, passed by the Texas legislature in its latest session, allows individuals to carry a concealed handgun while on the campus of a public, private, or independent institution of higher education.

Fenves is manufacturing his very own safe space loophole: he’s trying to block handguns in the University of Texas Austin’s dorms. Because there’s a penumbra of a shadow of an exception for dorms in that while on the campus phrase.

Or maybe because Austin’s dormitories aren’t actually on campus.

Or something. Who knows what’s going on in Fenves’ fevered imagination?

He is wrong on this, though; he’s just engaging in another Liberal assault on our 2nd Amendment.