<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Center of Attention</title>
	<atom:link href="http://themoderatevoice.com/15781/center-of-attention-145/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/15781/center-of-attention-145/</link>
	<description>An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:20:07 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: DLS</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/15781/center-of-attention-145/comment-page-1/#comment-103193</link>
		<dc:creator>DLS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/center-of-attention/15781/center-of-attention-145/#comment-103193</guid>
		<description>Regarding that Israeli bombing of a site in Syria: The Syrians apparently have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502884.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cleaned the site&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0NjIzYTY3ZGM5MjFhY2M1ODIxMTcxYWU2Y2ViMWU=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Were North Koreans working on a reactor there, and what does that say about a deal with the North Koreans?&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding that Israeli bombing of a site in Syria: The Syrians apparently have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502884.html" rel="nofollow">cleaned the site</a>.  <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0NjIzYTY3ZGM5MjFhY2M1ODIxMTcxYWU2Y2ViMWU=" rel="nofollow">Were North Koreans working on a reactor there, and what does that say about a deal with the North Koreans?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DLS</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/15781/center-of-attention-145/comment-page-1/#comment-103191</link>
		<dc:creator>DLS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/center-of-attention/15781/center-of-attention-145/#comment-103191</guid>
		<description>Compromise on S-CHIP: Raise the income limit from 200 to 250 per cent of federal poverty level.  (This was the limit that the Bush administration itself wants.)  Eliminate new option for pregnant women, eliminate coverage of parents; terminate coverage of adults immediately.  Eliminate the crowd-out study (which is worthless), then also either eliminate the new option to subsidize children&#039;s insurance (and their parents&#039;), the preferred option or (if the Democrats are ambitious or still hate Bush and believe a bill that includes it could see a veto overridden) retain it but limit it at 250 per cent of poverty level household income.  (The valid claim then is that the bill attempts to insure all children at 250 per cent or below, and the bill is only about children this time.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Compromise on S-CHIP: Raise the income limit from 200 to 250 per cent of federal poverty level.  (This was the limit that the Bush administration itself wants.)  Eliminate new option for pregnant women, eliminate coverage of parents; terminate coverage of adults immediately.  Eliminate the crowd-out study (which is worthless), then also either eliminate the new option to subsidize children&#8217;s insurance (and their parents&#8217;), the preferred option or (if the Democrats are ambitious or still hate Bush and believe a bill that includes it could see a veto overridden) retain it but limit it at 250 per cent of poverty level household income.  (The valid claim then is that the bill attempts to insure all children at 250 per cent or below, and the bill is only about children this time.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
