Sure. I like the point Ms. Stinson made about when we analyze opportunities or decisions or any kind of policy, not just doing it on an economic basis and whether you're talking about development in Goose Bay or whether you're talking about a whole new strategy or policy, really putting the social impacts on par with the economic impacts and realizing that if you ignore social impacts they usually end up having very negative and expensive long-term financial ones.
As an example, I know lotteries aren't federal, but what you see is that you can say adding a bingo or a lottery or a race track will bring this much money into the community, and that sounds great. Then you look at some of the analyses around what that actually costs in terms of increased addictions and problems with child care supervision.
It depends where your analysis starts and ends. I would say, for any of these policy decisions being made, to look at both sides of that equation.