Nancy Eubanks: Time to put country over party | TheUnion.com

Nancy Eubanks: Time to put country over party

Nancy Eubanks
Columnist

Nancy Eubanks

It's time for Republicans to vote for country over party.

Practically every major newspaper, even the Wall Street Journal, has either endorsed Hillary Clinton, or if they didn't out right endorse her, they have said Donald Trump is "unfit" to be president of the United States; that he doesn't have the temperament, the intellectual curiosity or experience; that some of his ideas are downright dangerous — like holding our NATO allies hostage (Richard Engel, NBC foreign correspondent, says it's like an extortion racket, pay up or we won't protect you).

Trump says our trade deals are bad — but his solution is tearing up our trade deals that have been negotiated by both parties for years and instead start trade wars. Some estimate this would cost Americans 4 million jobs. He says we should "take Iraq's oil" — against international law. And he would reinstate waterboarding — against the Geneva convention.

Domestically, he says he will create jobs, but his idea for doing that is the same old failed policies of the Republican party: cut taxes for the rich and cut taxes for businesses and the free market will magically create jobs. George W. Bush did this during his tenure. When Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. They passed two huge tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich and large corporation. They took a projected $5 trillion surplus the Clinton administration left in 2000 and turned it into an $11 trillion deficit.

People, please get over the propaganda about Hillary Clinton’s emails and Benghazi. No one candidate is perfect. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did similar things with their emails. During the GWB administration, our embassies were attacked 13 times resulting in over 60 deaths. Where was the Republican outrage then?

So much for fiscal responsibility. Also Bush had the worst job growth record since Eisenhower.

Recommended Stories For You

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has shown over and over again her competence. She has been calm and poised during the debates. She has shown her vast knowledge of domestic and international problems. Her solutions may not be flashy, but they are rooted in pragmatic, concrete ideas. She has a long list of accomplishments — just read the Sept. 25 New York Times endorsement of her. One of the biggest accomplishment was the Iran deal. During the George W. Bush administration, Iran had built up its nuclear capacity and some experts say they were months away from building a bomb. Hillary brought together a coalition of China, Russia and the EU and put in place a stiff embargo that brought Iran to the negotiation table. That deal has greatly reduced the Iran nuclear threat and allowed international observers to monitor their compliance. (What would Trump have done? Bomb Iran?)

Domestically, Hillary has proposed creating jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, much like FDR did during the Great Depression — remember the CCC and other public works projects. Throughout most of the 20th century, when a recession has occurred, economists generally agree that the best way to get the economy moving (when the private business sector is stagnating), is government spending — like the stimulus package Obama and the Democratic coalition did in 2008, the American Recovery Act. That act stopped the free fall loss of jobs that was happening when Obama took office.

We have had steady job growth ever since. It could have been better — but Republicans have refused to spend more money on infrastructure or anything. Remember their mantra ever since Obama took office "we will make Obama a one-term president." Republicans have been very good at just saying no to everything Obama proposes.

Yes, Hillary proposes raising taxes on the wealthy; i.e., make the wealthy pay their fair share. Is it fair that Trump may have paid no federal taxes for some 20 years, as widely reported? Is it fair, as Warren Buffet has stated, that he pays less in taxes than his secretary? The top 10 percent of households in this country control 75 percent of the wealth, and their fair share is much larger than what they currently pay.

People, please get over the propaganda about Hillary Clinton's emails and Benghazi. No one candidate is perfect. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did similar things with their emails. During the GWB administration, our embassies were attacked 13 times resulting in over 60 deaths. Where was the Republican outrage then?

Finally, as Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal said, Clinton is the most "experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane" candidate for President vs. Trump, whom she characterizes as "the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit" person to ever run for president.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm voting for Hillary. I hope you will too.

Nancy Eubanks, who lives in Rough and Ready and is a member of the Nevada County Democratic Central Committee, is a member of The Union Editorial Board. Her opinion is her own and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of The Union or its editorial board. Write to her at EditBoard@TheUnion.com.

Go back to article