Helotes proud, Chinese style

During these Olympic games, it has become obvious that many Chinese are proud to live in their country. Some Helotians are proud, too, and there are certainly many similarities.

In Red China, party leaders don’t care what citizens think. In Helotes, the Schoolcraft Red Council dissolved six committees that provided citizen input and oversight.

In Red China, party leaders carefully orchestrate all forms of communication and control every public word. In Helotes, the Red Council seized control of communications from a citizen’s committee and also approved a long list of restrictions on what can be said during Citizens to be Heard.

In Red China, party leaders desperately fear technology and information. At Red Helotes council meetings, police officers are tasked with ensuring that no one looks at a Blackberry or takes notes on a tablet PC.

In Red China, party leaders control all imagery and photographs. In Helotes, the Red Council will order police officers to seize cameras used in ways they don’t like.

In Red China, party leaders never want for food or drink and exempt themselves from all rules. In Helotes, Red Council members were slurping sodas when Schoolcraft had police officers instruct the parents of a 4-year-old that her sippie cup was not allowed.

In Red China, party leaders reward ideological supporters with committee posts, regardless of their qualifications. In Red Helotes, Schoolcraft handed parks oversight to a rabid supporter who last year told the Green Council she raised five kids here and “never needed a park.”

In Red China, party leaders use official powers to harass and intimidate detractors. In Red Helotes, critics get singled out for enforcement of ordinances. For example, our sign ordinance is intended to disallow monstrous eyesores, but Schoolcraft and Whitehead used it to harass the Helotes Creek Nature Center, which hung up a charming little carved wooden sign made from a split tree branch, because they don’t like the center’s founder.

There are some ironies in all this. Last year, Schoolcraft was perfectly happy to allow his supporters to photograph me many times, and he allowed all manner of personal attacks on not just other council members but any Helotes citizen they chose to vilify.

Back then, he didn’t have the council support to implement Chinese-style restrictions.

Now he does, and I suppose that all of this makes some Helotians proud to live here.

But it really shouldn’t.

Gregg Eckhardt
Helotes

Soaring energy costs are taxing our economy and leaving us dangerously dependent on foreign energy sources.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that our need for electricity will increase 25 percent by 2030. While global demand increases, worldwide energy supply remains fairly stagnant, unnecessarily restrained by government regulations and prohibitions.

In order to reduce the cost of fuel and power and ensure we can meet energy demands into the future, we must increase domestic supply and expand our portfolio of energy options. Now is the time to make nuclear power a greater part of America’s energy solution.

Nuclear power is a clean, efficient, domestic source of energy, but it is currently underutilized. From 1950 through the 1970s, there was a surge in U.S. nuclear power, and over 100 reactors were commissioned in 31 states. However, by the end of the 1970s, construction on nuclear reactors slowed.

Federal research and development funding for nuclear technology declined as investors pursued sources of electricity with lower capital and development costs. America began to turn away from nuclear power.

Meanwhile, other nations, like France, began to develop nuclear technology and made it a centerpiece of their energy portfolios. Though the entire country of France is over 50,000 square miles smaller than Texas, it now has 59 of the world’s 439 nuclear units. A whopping 80 percent of its power is nuclear-generated.

Japan – roughly half the size of France – has 55 nuclear power plants. Though the U.S. has 104 reactors, a new one has not been constructed since 1977. Nuclear production accounts for a mere 20 percent of the electricity we use.

Fortunately, America is on the verge of a nuclear renaissance – and Texas is poised to play a central role. Our state is on track to build the nation’s first nuclear reactors in 30 years with the expansion of the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear station in Bay City.

These new reactors will double the existing STP production levels, helping to ensure that Texas’ increasing energy demands will be met. Additionally, construction and operation of the units will generate thousands of new jobs in Texas.

Passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signaled a shift in this direction, with provisions to spur investment in nuclear power infrastructure. Many in Congress believe a goal of 45 new nuclear power plants in the U.S. by 2030 is reasonable. Policymakers from both sides of the aisle, industry leaders, environmentalists, members of the business community, and the ranks of academia are increasingly rallying around nuclear energy as an important part of the solution.

The Nuclear Energy Institute reports that our nation’s 104 nuclear plants operate 24/7 and produce power approximately 90 percent of the time. This surpasses the output efficiency levels of all other power sources.

Furthermore, nuclear power is low in cost compared to other fuel sources that are used for electricity. In our present energy crunch, natural gas, which is sensitive to market fluctuations, is significantly more expensive than when it was considered a good substitute for nuclear power. One uranium fuel pellet – smaller than a peanut – yields as much electricity as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Nuclear power has a proven safety record. U.S. reactors have collectively logged more than 3,000 reactor-years of operating experience, while quietly powering cities and towns across the nation. The U.S. Navy has more than 5,500 reactor-years under its belt.

It is also one of our cleanest forms of energy. Nuclear power, which emits little or no greenhouse gases, presents a reliable, environmentally favorable alternative to other sources of fuel.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. senator from Texas and is chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

At a time when American field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan say they need every single soldier, thousands of our battle-ready troops are being held back in the United States.

Why not deploy them? Because the Pentagon has hung a label on them: “Security risk.” 

That conjures up images of soldiers unwilling to fight – maybe because they have sympathies for the bad guys. Or maybe they’re unsavory characters who might attack their own commanders. But, no, there’s nothing squirrelly in the make-up of these folks. Their only “crime” is that they’ve fallen into debt here at home. 

Anyone can have an illness, go through a divorce, or just get caught in a credit card crunch – and debt piles up. But our troops also are targeted by predatory “payday lenders” – chains of quick-money outfits clustered around military bases, luring soldiers to borrow against their next paychecks at exorbitant interest rates. 

When debt payments reach about a third of a soldier’s paycheck, the military brass designates that troop a risk and yanks their security clearance, meaning they’re barred from duty abroad.

The Pentagon’s rationale is that soldiers in debt might be tempted to sell secrets or military equipment to the enemy. More than 6,300 members of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines have lost their clearances in a recent four-year period due to financial reasons.

The true size of the problem, however, is much larger, since the Army – which employs the vast majority of our troops – refuses to release its numbers. 

The top dogs should work with these good soldiers to refinance their loan-shark debts with long-term loans at a low – or even zero – interest rate.

Lenders should not be allowed to profit from the hardships of American soldiers.

Former Texas Agriculture Secretary Jim Hightower is a best-selling author.