<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How pork becomes law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/02/how-pork-becomes-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/02/how-pork-becomes-law/</link>
	<description>Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Two years of Homeland Stupidity - Homeland Stupidity</title>
		<link>http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/02/how-pork-becomes-law/#comment-5841</link>
		<dc:creator>Two years of Homeland Stupidity - Homeland Stupidity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:35:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ioerror.us/?p=771#comment-5841</guid>
		<description>[...] This isn&#8217;t just a problem for the military. Homeland Security suffers from a major pork problem. Nobody outside D.C. really likes pork, so why does it keep coming back? There&#8217;s no end in sight to the waste of money, thanks to people like Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the Prince of Pork, who diverted untold numbers of contracts worth God only knows how much back to his district, whether it made sense or not, and regardless of the damage to national security. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This isn&#8217;t just a problem for the military. Homeland Security suffers from a major pork problem. Nobody outside D.C. really likes pork, so why does it keep coming back? There&#8217;s no end in sight to the waste of money, thanks to people like Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the Prince of Pork, who diverted untold numbers of contracts worth God only knows how much back to his district, whether it made sense or not, and regardless of the damage to national security. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fed up with pork? - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity</title>
		<link>http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/02/how-pork-becomes-law/#comment-5840</link>
		<dc:creator>Fed up with pork? - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ioerror.us/?p=771#comment-5840</guid>
		<description>[...] So if the public is so fed up with pork, why do they keep re-electing representatives who bring home the bacon? And who&#8217;s responsible for all this pork, anyway?What you and I know as pork is known inside the Beltway as earmarks, attachments to other bills with spending for specific programs, usually targeted to a particular Congressional district, sometimes designed so that only a particular company can receive the money.  Although Mr. Bush embraced the idea of limiting earmarks in his State of the Union address, his newly released budget offered no recommendation on how to approach the issue. But it did warn of the hazards of earmarks, saying the push by lawmakers to add millions of dollars in pet projects to agency spending could be disruptive. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] So if the public is so fed up with pork, why do they keep re-electing representatives who bring home the bacon? And who&#8217;s responsible for all this pork, anyway?What you and I know as pork is known inside the Beltway as earmarks, attachments to other bills with spending for specific programs, usually targeted to a particular Congressional district, sometimes designed so that only a particular company can receive the money.  Although Mr. Bush embraced the idea of limiting earmarks in his State of the Union address, his newly released budget offered no recommendation on how to approach the issue. But it did warn of the hazards of earmarks, saying the push by lawmakers to add millions of dollars in pet projects to agency spending could be disruptive. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.062 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-09 07:22:03 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
