In Peek's piece for the place that offers "fair and balanced" information, she goes off on the president for apparently whining about his inability to accomplish anything.
Finally, we know what President Obama’s initials stand for! He’s the Boo –HooO president! OK, that’s a little cheesy, but seriously, have we ever had a whinier leader of the free world? Most recently, and quite ungrammatically (it was not scripted into the First Teleprompter), he whined that his opponents “talk about me like a dog”. This doesn’t even make much sense, but is consistent with the woe-is-me tone of this president, who has complained about attacks from the right and the left, and couched nearly every major address with an extreme whine about taking over the White House during tough times. Just for the record, he did want the presidency, right?Peek seems to believe that Obama has got it all backwards and that his initiatives are out of touch with what Americans want, but in my opinion, Peek is the one who has got it wrong. She seems to follow her company's right-wing narrative in making her case. Here are some of the points Peek makes:
All this self-pitying no doubt feeds on sinking poll ratings, and the frustration the president now feels with the American people. They just refuse to applaud his many dazzling accomplishments, and most especially remain stubbornly hostile to Obamacare. What is wrong with these people?
Here’s why Americans have fallen out of love with President Obama: they feel snookered. He has not delivered his promised good faith effort to heal a wounded country. He has not brought transparency to government and he has ignored the priorities of the people. Most important, he has not been truthful with Americans, and they know it.
She claims that the president blames large corporations for the current unemployment situation when "poor management, blizzard of legislation, record deficits and consequent anxiety inspired by this White House" are to blame. That is interesting because the high unemployment didn't develop overnight - it was accompanied by the economic turmoil that preceded the Obama administration and did not reach it's peek until a couple years later, during Obama's administration.
She quotes Obama as saying corporations have to "live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else" but then questions what exactly those rules are and if those are the same rules are the ones governing Congress - maybe she should ask credit card companies that decided to hike up interest rates on their customers with no warnings and start charging fees left and right.
She questions whether or not Obama is pro-small business and then points to some study from the conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, which was closely linked the public policy creation of the Bush administration - according to Wikipedia, some prominent former government officials who are currently involved with the group are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John bolton, wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (aren't they all Fox News correspondents too?). Peek wrote the following about the conservative study:
A study from the American Enterprise Institute, using IRS data, shows that 48% of the “net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes about $200,000 in 2007”. So, clearly allowing the top tax rate to rise will harm just those companies he is so quick to embrace.Basically, Peek writes that people making $200,000 will be hurt because the companies they own won't be able to grow because they will be taxed at a slightly higher rate. I find this interesting because private sector job growth pretty much vanished over the last ten years, when the previous administration had its tax cuts in place.
Peek then attacks Obama's criticisms of the Bush tax cuts:
President Obama seems to be a very confused individual. He says “We were handed a $1.3 trillion deficit when we walked through the door”, but actually the deficit in 2008 was only $455 billion. That figure included the first stimulus package of $300 billion. The deficit in 2007 was $163 billion. He says that Bush “cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires”, but in fact Bush removed 5 million low-income families from the tax roles. The bottom tax rate was 15%; Bush reduced that to 10%. The child tax credit was raised from $600 to $1,000.Peek must not be aware of her employer's anger over regular American's current tax rate, and she seems to ignore the fact that while taxes were lowered across the board, the wealthy saw much more benefits.
Peek's next complaint is just silly - she complains about the president's desire for a leaner, more efficient government by making fun of the number of "czars" and mentioning the recent appointment of an "Asian Carp Czar" - I guess Peek had no problem with Bush's long list of czars, including a "Clean Up Czar" and "Faith Czar," as well as the threat Asian Carp pose to the American ecosystems they have invaded.
Peek's final conclusion - Obama is targeting small businesses and it is best that the federal government keeps away while companies correct the economic situation we are in today.