I think it's mostly all been said here. I think that perhaps what's most alarming about asking for the increase in the debt ceiling and the planned $100-billion spending when we don't know what it's going to go to is that it has been explicitly stated as being for after the pandemic.
I think the government has a strong case that when the pandemic hit, there was pretty much unanimity across the country that this was an emergency and that it had to send money that it didn't plan on. We get that. I think everybody gets that.
After the pandemic is a different story. I think it's a very different argument for the government to propose permanent new spending without any debate. It's essentially saying, conveniently, that all the things it wants to spend on with new permanent spending miraculously aligned with the things it wanted to do before the pandemic but didn't have the money to do. If the argument is that we didn't have the money before the pandemic, it's very hard to now say that suddenly, after the pandemic, we're able to spend money on these things that we couldn't find the money for beforehand.