Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.

“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.

Obama said he wants to move toward “a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you.” That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025. 

But the president said it won’t happen overnight and if any politician says it’s easy, “they’re not telling the truth.”

“Gas prices? They’re going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that’s going to take a couple of years to have serious effect,” Obama said.

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

The president spoke at a town hall meeting at Gamesa Technology Corp., a Spanish company that makes giant turbines that use wind to generate electricity. According to the White House, it is the first overseas company of its kind to set up shop in the U.S.

 For the Rest of this Article:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-says-little-shortterm-apf-1680912387.html?x=0&.v=4

 Face Forward Comments:Holy freaking cow…… Who does this man think is being hurt by the fuel prices. Oh wait a minute, that’s right, he knows it is the working middle class that is paying the fuel bill right now. And he does not care. Those being least hurt are the public transportation crowd AKA his voters. What arrogance! For a American citizen asking a legitimate question, being needled by the president of the country. Can you imagine what would be said if Bush had said something like that to a voter?

And now finally, I wonder how much of your money, Mr and Mrs American middle class Tax Payer, was given to this Spanish company? It is something you should find out and if you don’t like it, I suggest you vote out the man who gave it to them.

Mindful of soaring deficits and an anti-Wall Street mood, President Barack Obama wants a new 10-year tax on the country’s largest banks to cover a projected $117 billion shortfall in the government’s financial crisis bailout fund.

The president planned to propose Thursday a levy of 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent, on the liabilities of large financial institutions to make sure every dollar spent from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue Wall Street firms, auto companies and mortgage holders is either repaid or paid for. Congress would have to approve the tax.

A senior administration official said the tax, which officials are calling a “financial crisis responsibility fee,” would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms – estimated to amount to about 50 institutions – would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back their government infusions.

The official said banks could pay for the tax by tapping their generous executive bonus pools. The administration official described the plan on the condition of anonymity because it had not been officially announced.

At issue is the net cost of TARP, the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of toxic assets. The fund has since evolved, helping not only the banking sector, but also autos and homeowners.

Insurance conglomerate American International Group, the largest beneficiary with nearly $70 billion in bailouts, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be fully repaid, would not be subject to a tax.

Bankers did not hide their objections.

For Additonal Information on this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60D1PA20100114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100114/D9D7FIMG0.html

Face Forward Comments

Obama knows who uses banks and who dosen’t.  He also know that the banks will simply pass the fees on to their customers.  More redistribution of wealth.

Now that the House and Senate have both passed separate health care reform bills, the legislative process shifts to ironing out the differences. This typically involves having a formal conference committee containing members of both the House and the Senate. The goal is to reconcile the two bills, creating a final bill that both chambers will vote on. In a surprise turn, according to Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic, Democrats intend to employ an obscure tactic, informally known as “ping-pong,” to shut Republicans out of the final negotiations and speed the bills toward completion. In “ping-pong” the legislation is bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, controlled by just the Democratic leadership in each chamber and the White House, until a final agreement can be reached.

It’s “almost certain,” according to a pair of senior congressional staffers Cohn spoke to, that the Democratic leadership will seek to avoid a formal conference committee and its procedural steps. The formal process and additional votes would have offered multiple additional opportunities for the Republicans to slow or obstruct the bill’s process, as they did throughout the fall.

As one might expect, Republicans in Congress are aghast over the move. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority leader John Boehner, told Yahoo! News that such a tactic would break President Obama’s campaign promise of health care debate transparency. He labeled the strategy a “disgrace”.

For more on this subject read the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1044

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2010/1/5/democrats-in-congress-aim-to-bypass-formal-conference-committee.aspx

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/04/congress-ping-pong-partisanship.aspx

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/01/05/obamacare-ping-pong/

Face Forward Comments:

Of course they are going to shut conservatives out of the negotiations.  Did anyone really expect the progressives to give any part of their march to wealth redistribution back?

There is fundamentally something wrong with any government that thinks of themselves as Robin Hood.   Do you really think that this government represents all of the people when they keep sending the message that they are robing from the rich to give to the poor?

To you liberals, let’s get something straight.  Robin Hood was a fictional character. Unfortunately, in this reality, the robbing from the poor tax payers is all too real.  Secondly, the thief (Robin) took from the government (Royal Politicians) to give back to the people that produced the goods and services (workers).  This time, the thief (Politicians) are taking from the producers (poor tax Payers)  to give to the non producers.  Sadly, the political Robin Hoods in government don’t have the same good (but misguided)  intentions as our fictional hero.  These thieves are not concerned about helping the poor but are concerned about keeping them impoverished so that they can keep themselves in power.  Robin Hood helped no one and this government is not helping either.

Consider this from Ayn Rands Book, “Atlas Shrugged”

 [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.” “. . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”

WASHINGTON — Americans have historically swung between anger at big business and anger at Washington. This year their rage has targeted business and government with equal fury.

Public frustration over Wall Street failures that led to the financial crisis was typified by the uproar over bonus payments to American International Group Inc. executives. Those feelings haven’t dissipated, political strategists say. At the same time, Americans are equally upset at what they call overreaching by Congress and federal bureaucrats, with protesters taking to the streets to decry “socialism” and a “government takeover” of the economy.

Policy makers face a quandary. With voters simultaneously recoiling at laissez-faire policies and a big-government approach neither party in Washington seems capable of corralling an angry public.

“I think this is a very populist moment,” said Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman and now a top Republican strategist. “People held onto their distrust of big business and Wall Street, but what has happened is their distrust of big government has come back as well.”

Last year when Barack Obama won the presidency and Democrats swept to big congressional majorities, commentators heralded the dawn of a “new New Deal.” Time magazine put Mr. Obama on its cover sporting a cigarette-holder in a pose reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt. Democrats sought support for an ambitious agenda that included a stimulus package, an overhaul of the health-care system and a bill to address climate change.

 Along the way, they have encountered an angry distrust of government, and politicians of all stripes, that is palpable in tea-party groups forming around the country.

“I have had I don’t know how many politicians ask, ‘Can I speak at your tea party?’” said Catherina Wojtowicz, coordinator of the Chicago Tea Party group. Her response: “Honestly, it’s your turn now to shut up, sit down and listen.

For the rest of this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125539072998381441.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond