<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Still Time for Earmark Reform.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/01/03/still-time-for-earmark-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/01/03/still-time-for-earmark-reform/</link>
	<description>The FreedomWorks blog dedicated to lower taxes and more freedom.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mister Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/01/03/still-time-for-earmark-reform/#comment-73516</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/01/03/still-time-for-earmark-reform/#comment-73516</guid>
		<description>Earmarks are usually bad when it comes to how federal agencies spend the money that they are given yearly.  This is because earmarks usually involve a pot of money in the agency's budget that is set aside and can only be spent on a specific issue and not on the general administration of the agency.  If we are to keep earmarks, this issue needs to be addressed or agencies will continually be being asked to do "more with less", which is unsustainable.  I wouldn't be surprised if GWB did what you said he's thinking about doing, but it would be unconstitutional...just like the line item veto.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earmarks are usually bad when it comes to how federal agencies spend the money that they are given yearly.  This is because earmarks usually involve a pot of money in the agency&#8217;s budget that is set aside and can only be spent on a specific issue and not on the general administration of the agency.  If we are to keep earmarks, this issue needs to be addressed or agencies will continually be being asked to do &#8220;more with less&#8221;, which is unsustainable.  I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if GWB did what you said he&#8217;s thinking about doing, but it would be unconstitutional&#8230;just like the line item veto.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
