<?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: Proposed 2010 SEC Budget Provides 6.8% Increase Over 2009</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05/07/proposed-2010-sec-budget-provides-68-increase-over-2009/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05/07/proposed-2010-sec-budget-provides-68-increase-over-2009/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:33:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Government “Stimulus.” It’s less bang for your buck. &#171; A Dose of Healthful Commentary</title>
		<link>http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05/07/proposed-2010-sec-budget-provides-68-increase-over-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-4833</link>
		<dc:creator>Government “Stimulus.” It’s less bang for your buck. &#171; A Dose of Healthful Commentary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.securitiesdocket.com/?p=7924#comment-4833</guid>
		<description>[...] SEC.  But to appease her concerns, the same congress that approved a 6.8% budgetary increase to $1.027 billion for 2010 is now considering rewarding the agency a 2011 budgetary increase of 12%, all at the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SEC.  But to appease her concerns, the same congress that approved a 6.8% budgetary increase to $1.027 billion for 2010 is now considering rewarding the agency a 2011 budgetary increase of 12%, all at the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

