Just to add to that, it seems to me that one step that can be taken, and I've referenced it before, is to try to break down the $200 billion that are currently being spent by government in terms of what is being spent percentage-wise on prevention and what is being spent on redemption for, in many cases, non-discretionary expenditures. No one is suggesting that the old and the sick should not receive proper health care. No one is suggesting that those who've committed crimes should be let go and put on the street to commit more crimes, etc. I think if we do that kind of analysis and we look at studies done by organizations that in no way, shape, or form could be considered as being, shall we say, anti-corporate, such as the OECD, you have studies that demonstrate that, all other factors being equal, by increasing the average education level of adults in society, you will increase the GDP from 4% to 7%, which it seems to me is the objective in terms of productivity.
The other issue we have to take into account is we have a continuing cycle and the only way to break the cycle is by starting with children and youth. Children and youth don't vote--at least they don't until they're age 18. Politicians naturally gravitate to where they can see the votes. We're not going to break the cycle unless we start at that level.
It would seem to me—and Sally has made the point—that there's plenty of evidence there, but none who are blind can see, or none who don't wish to see, etc. Let's take that evidence. I think a good step would be to do an analysis of current expenditures. I am convinced we would find that a disproportionate amount of that $200 billion is being spent to redeem certain things that could have been prevented by appropriate intervention.