President Elect Barack Obama to appear On Barbara Walters...

    and he has a few good things to say about our economic crisis and the bankers who are now asking for bailouts.

   A few excerpts from the interview.

ABCNews

"One of the concerns I have is that the economy is so weakened that the next 60 days are going to be difficult because we've got a president who, even though he may mean well, is now sort of in lame-duck status [and] Congress isn't in [session]."

"And I don't have the reins of power," Obama added.

  On the Wall Street bailout, Obama said,

    "I'm not president yet, so I don't know yet how much more money is going to be spent. I'm going to scrutinize very carefully how that money is spent. If the Bush administration chooses to draw down that money, then I'm going to have something to say about whether it's doing it wisely," he told Walters.

Obama said the executives at those companies who have taken federal loans should act responsibly with the tax payers' money, chiding Wall Street executives who sought multimillion dollar bonuses and the leaders of Detroit's Big Three automakers who last week flew to Washington aboard private jets to ask Congress for a bailout.

He called the automaker executives "tone deaf" to the concerns of the American people.

  Is Obama lost when it comes to these CEO's? They haven't acted in a responsible manner with their companies or its money. What makes Obama think that they will show any care for the taxpayers cash?

Executives at many of Wall Street's top firms, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, have, in recent days, laid off scores of workers and announced they would forgo Christmas bonuses, a policy the incoming president indicated he wanted to see more of.

Asked by Walters if bank executives should forgo their bonuses, Obama said, "I think they should."

  How about forgoing some of those Golden Parachutes and other retirement benefits while they are at it?

    Watch the show "A Barbara Walters Special: Barack and Michelle Obama," Tonight at 10 p.m. ET on ABC.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Barbera Walters,ABC,Economy,Wall Street

Wounded Vets Told Injuries Not Combat Related

  It is just one outrage after another under the Bush Crime Syndicate.

     The Los Angeles Times has an interesting, if not disgusting, look at how the Pentagon has gone about telling our wounded troops that their injuries are not combat related. This costs those veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits, which are rightfully theirs.

   So how have some of our veterans been injured?

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.

  Sounds like combat related injuries to me.

      In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.

   This kind of diagnosis comes about because of some rule changes that went onto effect this past March.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

    The DAV is working on having this rule rescinded, and it should be tossed of the books.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a direct result of wounds suffered in combat.
Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.
"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."
Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

    Funny how the government can pony up $700 billion to financial institutions which ripped of investors while lining their pockets, but they attempt to  deny benefits to our people fighting a war in foreign lands, who come home ravaged by that war.

Technorati Tags: Pentagon,DAV,Veterans,Benefits,Congress