Blessed be the Capitalists

Blessed Are the Capitalists for They Are the Job-makers—————-
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
As a Catholic, I was thrilled by the visit of Pope Francis to America and proud of the warmth and affection he received from people of all faiths and even from many of no faith. He is truly an inspiring spiritual leader and role model whose love and concern for the poor and disenfranchised resonates with people of good will everywhere. He imitates Christ in his humility and disdain of luxury and the trappings of power.
He urged people and governments to consider the needs of the poor and to be compassionate and welcoming to immigrants and refugees. We should heed his words and strive to do better but I wish he would leave the details on how some of these goals can best be achieved to those better qualified to determine what works best. These would probably not include his Vatican economic advisors.
The Pope did tone down some of his earlier harsh criticisms of capitalism, the profit motive, man’s complicity in global warming and other matters which fall somewhat outside his job description. Regarding global warming, though, he is still supportive of measures to restrict the use of carbon-based fuels which, by increasing the cost of electricity, would reduce its availability to the very poor he champions and greatly lower their standard of living, particularly in developing countries.
He also lent his support to the nuclear agreement with Iran, hailing the accord in an address at the UN as “proof of the potential of political good will and of law, experienced with sincerity, patience and constancy”. He also praised it as an important step in “a complete prohibition of (nuclear) weapons”. Sincerity? Good will? Anyone who is at all knowledgeable of Iranian behavior since the fall of the Shah knows that it can hardly be characterized by terms like sincerity or good will. They know further that this flawed deal will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, much less lead to a complete prohibition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it will probably lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
The Pope is a spiritual leader and a theologian, not an economist, scientist, security expert or political analyst. Nevertheless, he has as much right as anyone to pontificate on these issues and he has the bully pulpit and rapt attention of adoring audiences to present them but in doing so, he is not immune to criticism for he is not infallible on these matters as he is on matters of the Catholic faith.
In our hemisphere, the Pope said, people flee their own countries and head north in search of a better life. They should be welcomed, he said. That they are seeking to flee corrupt and ineffective governments in countries that distain capitalism to seek a better life in capitalist United States says quite a lot about which economic system offers that better life and a better chance for the poor. Many, if not most, of our poor, at least, have luxuries such as TVs, cell phones transportation, electrical appliances and other worldly comforts that most of their poor can only imagine.
True, far too many of our poor fall through the cracks. Our religious traditions urge us to help the less fortunate among us. These teachings and traditions, however, do not require or condone that governments accomplish this by arbitrary redistribution of wealth. We have a humane obligation to help the poor voluntarily but should be under no obligation to be become poor ourselves in the process. The American way, at least in the past, has been to help the poor help themselves, not to create a society where half its members are dependent upon government subsidies.
America has lifted more people out of poverty and has done more to help the world’s oppressed and displaced than any other nation. It was American capitalism, entrepreneurialism and private enterprise, not its government, that provided most of those jobs which the Pope says every person is entitled to. Is it too much to ask for a little recognition from the Vatican in this regard? And by the way, His Holiness missed a golden opportunity while chatting with President Obama to chide him and his administration for its support of abortion. And while in Cuba, he might have at least criticized the Castro brothers for the treatment of Catholics by that atheistic government. And the visit of China’s Xi Jinping coinciding with his, presented a great opportunity to condemn China’s restrictions on the church and its history of aborting female babies.
Notwithstanding these criticism, offered with sincerity and good will, it was a great visit and I hope he comes back soon to bless us with his presence and perhaps learn more about American capitalism and exceptionalism and why they so often produce results where other systems so often don’t.

September 28, 2015

Round Two of the GOP Debates

Round Two in the GOP Campaign—————————–
A commentary
By J.F. Kelly, Jr.
In an obvious attempt to provoke candidates to turn on the front runner right at the opening bell of the second round of the GOP presidential debate series, the moderator asked whether Donald Trump could be trusted as the person in charge of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Rising GOP star Carly Fiorina, newly elevated to the varsity debating team, refused to take the bait. “That’s for the voters to decide,” she replied. Continuing a line of questions that dealt more with style than substance, Fiorina was later asked to respond to a Trump remark about her personal appearance. Showing remarkable restraint she answered, “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,” evoking thunderous applause.
For the most part, with the exception of the Donald, participants observed the Reagan rule of declining to speak ill of fellow Republican candidates. Moderators hate it but It’s a good rule because attacks on fellow party candidates only benefit the other party by providing their candidates ammunition which is what happened in 2012, damaging Mitt Romney’s chances.
Trump’s fellow candidates for the GOP nomination may feel compelled to mute their criticism of Trump, but the rest of us are under no such obligation. Mr. Trump demonstrated again that he is not presidential and his election would be an embarrassment to the nation. His behavior is boorish. He questioned why Sen. Paul Rand was even on the same stage, given his standing in the polls and implied that his personal appearance, too, left something to be desired. He said that former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s immigration views are a result of having a Mexican-born wife and then refused to apologize to her as she sat in the audience. This was typical Trump and it grows tiresome.
Mr. Trump, for all his wealth and business successes, lacks the temperament and experience to lead the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy. In this role he must be ready to lead from day one. A president-elect of the United States does not have the luxury of time to grow into the job. Ask yourself if you would feel comfortable with his finger on the nuclear trigger. Would you trust a person with so little self-control?
Donald Trump would indeed shake up the political establishment but shaking things up isn’t enough. What actually would he accomplish and how? He is very vague on details. Promises are not enough. We got plenty of those from the incumbent. We are not, after all, electing a dictator who can mandate things, but a president who will control only one branch of government and who must work with Congress to get things done.
There were ten serious, intelligent, accomplished, polite candidates on that stage, any one of whom I could support, and one bombastic, arrogant, self-centered buffoon who constantly trumpets his wealth and deal-making ability and who calls our leaders stupid. That 30% of Republican voters actually support his candidacy is reflective of the widespread anger over illegal immigration, the national debt, the economy and a host of other problems but what makes them think that this TV personality and real estate mogul can actually fix any of this? Mr. Trump served some purpose in calling attention to these problems but it’s time for him to put the good of the nation ahead of his own ambitions and support a candidate who is better qualified to lead the nation. And before he criticizes anyone else’s personal appearance, he should perhaps get a new hair-do and work on losing that scowl when he attempts to appear deeply contemplative on camera.
Gov. John Kaisich and others repeated the tired old mantra that America is on the verge of a great era. America is on the verge of something, alright, but I’m not sure it’s great. We are $18 trillion in debt, our young people can’t find meaningful jobs and the world is falling apart around us while President Obama attempts to lead from behind. Mr. Trump is absolutely right about these things but we really didn’t need him to tell us so. If Republicans blow this opportunity to turn things around, if they cannot coalesce around a ticket that can manage to defeat a scandal-plagued former Secretary of State or an ageing Socialist from Vermont, or a gaffe-prone VP with two previous failed presidential bids, then we are indeed on the verge of something that’s not at all great.
September 19, 2015

Who Will Rule the Waves?

Who Will Rule the Waves?——————————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Britannia once ruled the waves but not anymore. Most likely, no single nation will again in the foreseeable future. Britain’s Royal Navy was key to maintaining its far-flung empire on which, it was said, the sun never set. The decline of the Royal Navy coincided, but not by coincidence, with the decline of the British Empire and the United Kingdom became a second-tier military and economic power.

The United States took its place and, although not a colonial empire builder, our extensive economic interests are similarly far-flung. And like Britain did, we rely on a powerful blue-water navy to project power, presence and influence and protect the sea routes through which about 90% of our imports and exports travel. We are, in effect, an island nation bordered not just by two but by three oceans. President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Alaska reminds us that we have an interest in the resource-rich Arctic Ocean which borders the lengthy north coast of that state.

So, too, does Russia and, of course, Canada and other friendly states including Denmark and Norway. And so, apparently, does China which, though far from the Arctic, sent five naval vessels to the Bering Sea between Russia and Alaska, exercising the right of innocent passage through our territorial waters, a right which they, incidentally, routinely object to when we transit even close to their territorial waters or to the man-made islands they have created in the South China Sea far from their mainland. The Chinese deployment overlapped, probably not by chance, Obama’s visit, demonstrating that China is developing a blue-water navy befitting a top-tier military and economic power with wide-ranging global interests intent on project power, presence and influence.

Meanwhile, our navy has shrunk and our shipbuilding program is so anemic that it cannot maintain even its current historically low level. At 273 ships, it’s the smallest our fleet has been since the 1930s. The commitments, however, are not shrinking and our commercial and security interests are greater than ever. Forward-deployed naval forces are still needed to counter threats from potential enemies, promote regional stability, protect commerce at sea and respond to humanitarian emergencies. Our ability to exercise these missions and respond to simultaneous crises has deteriorated. The navy is underfunded and over-extended. Deferred and extended maintenance periods are resulting in longer deployments. Crew swaps are necessary to keep ships operating. Shipbuilding is underfunded by an average of $5 billion annually according the Congressional Budget Office. The navy has been relying on as much as $4 billion in temporary funding to maintain and operate the fleet according to testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2014.

The shipbuilding program provides for a new Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier every five years. Assuming a service life of about forty years, this will eventually result in a carrier force level of eight or about two-thirds the current, inadequate level. This will be insufficient to meet projected commitments which show no sign of diminishing.

Because of the length of time it takes to build and make ready for service a major warship, shortfalls and gaps in meeting commitments are already inevitable and, indeed, are happening now. There will surely come a time when the answer to that question every president has asked in times of crisis, “Where is the nearest carrier group?” will be, “Sir, there is no available carrier group or amphibious ready group at this time.”

Critics of increased expenditures to rebuild the navy argue that ours is still the largest and strongest in the world, which misses the point entirely. Navies are not sized primarily to fight one another. The need for naval forces should be based primarily on what we task them to do and what tasks are best accomplished by naval forces. By these criteria, ours are insufficient in number and overextended.

September 18, 2015