 Last week, Thomas Massey, the Republican congressman from Kentucky, became the most hated man in Washington. He tried to force the House of Representatives to travel back to D.C. to vote in person on the $2 trillion stimulus bill, which was designed as a response to the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. President Trump called Massey a third-rate grandstander on Twitter, which former Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry retweeted, adding that, and I quote, Congressman Massey has tested positive for being an asshole, finally something the president and I can agree on. But Massey's opposition to the $2 trillion spending bill and the suspension of a voting process laid out in the Constitution is no surprise to anyone who has followed his career since he first showed up in D.C. in 2012. I'm happy to talk with him now about his reservations about the coronavirus aid relief and economic security CARES Act and how he thinks the country should be moving forward. Congressman Massey, thanks for talking. Hey, thanks for having me, Nick. Boy, there's a lot to respond to, but I want to respond to those tweets first. Yeah, yeah, please do. Well, first of all, the accusation that I'm a third-rate grandstander is completely unfounded. I'm at least second-rate, okay, and to John Kerry's tweet that I tested positive for being an a-hole, I would just say at least I haven't been symptomatic since birth. At least there was some doubt with me. In any case, let's clear that up and moving forward. Yeah, here is a question for you. What were you hoping to accomplish? And you laid out in a, we'll have a link to it, you laid out in a long series of tweets why you were calling for an actual vote on going forward with this stimulus bill or the spending bill rather. What were you hoping to accomplish with that? Sorry, there was one more insult hurled at me that you didn't mention that I'm most proud of. Nancy Pelosi called me a dangerous nuisance, which to me sounds, it first sounds like an oxymoron because a nuisance shouldn't be dangerous, but it's just an annoyance, right? But I'm proud if Nancy Pelosi thinks I'm a dangerous nuisance, that means I'm effective in stopping her agenda. And her agenda here was to pass a bill with nobody in Congress. I call it a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution. Now, when we're in session, they oftentimes do a unanimous consent. But the difference there is there's a quorum. People are present and if you had an objection, you could register it. And then that would lead to a debate or a vote possibly. But they were planning to do a unanimous consent with nobody there. Can you imagine if I had let her get away with that, what this fourth bill that they say is coming would look like? Like if you just let her run the tables and nobody shows up to put up in the opposition or to put people on record. So there's two things here that I was trying to make a point about. Number one, it's a bad bill. And we can get into that. We hopefully can dissect that. We will, we will, yes. But number two, if you're going to vote for the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind, I mean, probably FDR is blushing in his grave right now at this. If you're going to, if you're going to pass that, somebody should register whether they were present, were they there? Did they vote yay? Did they vote nay? Today I'm sitting here, Nick, this bill, now it passed the Senate 96 to nothing and all of those were registered. Those people showed up to work and they're 10 years older than us and clearly not as healthy. But if 96 out of 100 senators can show up, surely to goodness, 218 congressmen can show up out of 435. Actually, all they needed was 216 since we don't have quite 435 right now. And just show up to vote because the constitution requires it. I literally got my little pocket constitution back out and reread the section just to make sure I wasn't imagining this. You have to have a quorum and the constitution defines a quorum as half of congress president in order to conduct business. And Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy were telling members of Congress, stay home, we got this. And the reason, there's several incentives for them to do it. Number one, if you're in leadership, you want to get reelected to leadership. And the way you get reelected is by being popular. And it's popular with most congressmen and this is unfortunate. If they hear that they can stay home and they don't have to come to work. What's also popular is that they don't have to go on record. They're by exposing themselves in the next election. Now, Kevin McCarthy isn't trying to protect Democrats and Nancy Pelosi isn't trying to protect Republicans. But what they were trying to protect were their own members of their conference, their respective conferences from primary opponents. This bill is not going to age well. Okay. On the left, you've got some of the Bernie Bros that recognize this is cronyism, like on steroids. Okay. And on the right, you've got people that realize that this puts Tarp to shame. And that Tarp is one of the things that spawned the Tea Party and got a lot of people elected and a lot of them unelected. So they just didn't want to go on record. And so what I did is I went, by the way, there's a false media narrative that I delayed the bill somehow. I actually didn't delay it, the bill signing, much to my chagrin. It happened on time, but it wasn't my objective to delay it. In fact, instead of surprising everybody on Friday, I went to my leaders, the Republican leadership, and they said, why are you telling people that if I demand a recorded vote, it's going to delay the bill by day? They said, well, when you demand the vote, we've got to give everybody 24 hours notice to get here. I said, I'm telling you, I'm going to ask for the vote. And we're 24 hours before that day is here. Instead of telling people to stay home, you need to tell them to come to Washington, DC now. And that's what they did. So how many people, because we don't know exactly, out of your count, how many people voted against this bill or would have voted against this bill had there been a recorded vote? I think there were about five or six. Can you name those names? You saw it yourself. Who else voted against it or would vote against it? I'm going to name four off the top of my head. And my apologies to these members, if they were going to be a yes, they can always contest it because it wasn't recorded. And if time doesn't look kindly on anybody's vote, they can switch whatever suits them. But I know that Justin Amash was going to be a no. I know that Ken Buck was going to be a no. Ken Buck also was the strongest supporter of mine in terms of getting a recorded vote and not doing this by unanimous consent. Alex Mooney registered his objection to the bill very strongly when he spoke against the bill. And I believe Andy Biggs was a no or was going to be a no. By the way. Would AOC have been a vote? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She voted, or she voiced some real criticism. You were talking about Bernie Bros, who were bent out of shape. Well, literally everybody who got up to speak about this bill voiced some criticism. Some Democrats said it was just a down payment. It didn't go far enough. Some Republicans said there's stuff in here I don't like. Everybody expressed some criticism. I think you'd have to ask her, but I think based on her floor speech, she would have been a yes ultimately. But I can't speak for her. And this is the unfortunate thing about not having a vote. You can't infer from the speech they gave. By the way, they accused me of grandstanding. If you watched the debate, I saw four hours of at least 150 members get up and grandstand one minute at a time. And I wished to speak on the substance of the bill. And I went and said, okay, to the floor manager. And I said, when can I speak? Like, where am I here in this lineup? Because I was starting to realize it was looking pretty bleak that they were going to allow me to speak. And he said, well, these other people registered an interest in speaking on the bill before you did. And we've run out of slots. So we'll put you at the top of the waiting list. How ridiculous is that? Everybody, I mean, I knew somebody in Germany that said this was on the news in Germany that I was objecting to this bill. How ridiculous is it for somebody to tell me on the floor of the house that I didn't express interest in speaking about this bill soon enough so I would not get one minute of the four hours? And I did not get one minute of the four hours. So do you feel like, what do you feel like you accomplished by raising this ruckus? I mean, you got a lot of coverage. What did you accomplish? And also, what does it feel like to be... I mean, you had everybody's anger in the media and in Washington, D.C., directed at you like a laser. What's that feel like? Well, one of the things I accomplished, I got everybody read article one, section five, the Constitution. And by the way, I was right. They had, they drug a quorum there, kicking and screaming. Okay. Because I was right on the Constitution. What did I hope to accomplish? So, a lot of people looked at this, even my strong supporters said, don't go down there and set yourself on fire. Because we want you to come back to Congress. So even the people that support what I did, generally, some of them wanted to know, like you just asked, what was I hoping to accomplish? Well, they're already talking about a fourth bill. And I can tell you it's going to be more liberal. If that's a proper term. It's going to be more of Nancy Pelosi's liking, okay, the fourth one. It's going to have more spending. And it's going to have probably some more draconian stuff in it, in terms of government overreach. And if nobody had objected to this bill passing with nobody there, can you imagine a month from now, when it's harder to travel, and there are more congressmen infected with the virus? Can you imagine somebody trying to register an objection a month from now after having let this one pass last Friday without an objection? It would have been impossible. So one of the things that I've accomplished here, Nick, is I have set down a marker that people can expect that the fourth bill is going to require somebody to attend. And if they're not going to attend, they have to do it by remote voting. And by the way, if they do it by remote voting, you got to go on the record if you're going to do remote voting, right? You can't yell yeas and nays through a telephone. Well, you're not against remote voting, right? I mean, you're a tech guy. Obviously, there's got to be a way by which Congress can legitimately register votes over the phone or something, right? I'm not against it. And by the way, it's different in one very important regard from mail-in ballots in elections with a mail-in ballot that's supposed to be an anonymous choice. And in Congress, you're supposed to own your vote, right? So the fraud, how could there be fraud if you have 435 members and there's a roll call that's printed and a member can look at it and say, yes, that is how I voted? Like there's a built-in thing that keeps fraud from happening there. I think we should have, certainly we should be having remote hearings right now. We need to get three or four of these doctors in a room that disagree and they need to produce their data and their models and let's see who's got the right model and let's defend it. And the same thing with the economists that are justifying pumping $6 trillion into the economy here in the course of a few months. Before we talk about the actual particulars of the bill and the larger government response to coronavirus, you know, some of your critics said, you know, what are you doing? You mentioned that the Senate, you know, they're 10 years older than you. They're average age of 100, but people were saying, you know, you're bringing sick, potentially sick people. You're pulling Congress into that. A number of congressmen or representatives have tested positive for coronavirus or presumed to have it. Was that, is that at all a risk that you know, that you should have taken into account? Well, to get a quorum, you only need half of Congress. And I'm pretty sure there's some congressmen who are infected that we don't know about yet. And they may even suspect they're infected, but I'm pretty sure over half of Congress is not infected. Like you could make a choice to stay home and you could explain that to your constituents. I mean, several have self quarantined already because of exposure, Senator Rampol, self quarantine. Now, here's my problem with the argument that the congressmen are making saying, they shouldn't get exposed. They shouldn't be exposed during their travels to this virus, that they need to stay home. They're asking the truck drivers to go to work every day. They're asking the farmers to go out and spread fertilizer on their field, which by the way, does involve interacting with people. Do you think the fertilizer just shows up on the farm? You know, you have to go buy it, okay? They're asking the warehouse workers at Amazon to keep going to work so they can buy it now. So the congressmen can buy it now. They're asking the UPS driver to go to work. And you're telling me that a congressman who makes $174,000 a year and has a really good healthcare plan paid for by the taxpayer can't come to work when the Constitution compels them. As my colleague, Matt Gagnon, said, and by the way, I think he probably would have been one of the knows, I'm not sure on this. But he certainly did support my effort to require people to come to Congress. He pointed out congressmen used to ride on a horseback and sometimes through hot wars in our country to get there, right? Like, this is not a valid excuse for running over the Constitution. So they should have come to it. So let's talk about first the public health response that the federal government, Donald Trump is pushing. Different governors are doing different things. But how would you characterize the federal government's response, particularly the role of the CDC and the FDA? Have they covered themselves in glory or has the federal government really screwed the pooch from day one with all this? They've screwed the pooch with the messaging. I never really counted on him to be that competent in terms of saving us in any scenario. But their messaging should have been better because that's the one thing you could expect they could do. They could step up to a microphone and give good advice. Let me tell you two of the biggest lies, right after I'm the government and I'm here to help. The second biggest lie after I'm the government and I'm here to help is that these face masks only confer benefits to doctors and nurses, right? Like, look in Japan. I've been to Japan several times. They wear them during allergy season or cold season or flu season. Like, it's a cultural thing. And, you know, it's called N95 because it's 95% effective at stopping particles, right? And if you don't put it on well, it's an N80, okay? Or an N50. But it still confers some benefit. And for the health professionals and the politicians who are advised by ostensibly or presumably advised by CDC to step up there and say, don't wear a mask. That's harmful. That's worse than being not fully forthcoming. It's harmful. I think a lot of people could go to work and the employer, in addition to handing the safety glasses and a hair net if they handed them a face mask and prop the door open, okay? It may cost a little more to heat the building if the door's prop, but now a thousand people don't need to touch the same door handle. Like, there's a lot of common sense things we can do if the government would quit lying. So that's one of the lies. The other lie that I've heard recently is that we don't want everybody tested, okay? That's false. Like, what we want is like a test that costs $10 that anybody can take it home before they go to work that day, right? That's what we want. Now, in both of those cases, what they're trying to do, they're assuming the American public doesn't understand the concept of scarcity. And so it's valid to say we want the nurses and doctors and first responders to have the PPE before everybody else has it. That's valid. It's responsible to say, you know what? We've only got the capacity to test 10,000 people today. And we need to test the 10,000 that we suspect most have it, right? But don't lie to us when you're delivering that message. And the CDC has allowed the politicians to lie either through being complacent when the message is given by the politician with the imprimatur of the CDC standing there, right? So that's where they've been unhelpful. What countries or what states and localities in the US do you think have been exemplary in the response to the coronavirus? I don't know enough about the other countries. I mean, just looking at the graphs, I would have to assume that Japan and Korea or South Korea are doing a good job. But also you would have to infer North Korea is doing a great job, right? If you're just going by the self-reporting. That's a joke, folks, okay? I know somebody's going to clip that out and say and make an ad out of it. So I'm not even going to repeat it. But I'm not quite sure. I can tell you that I don't approve of the job my own state is doing right now. How so? What is Kentucky doing that's so wrong? And by the way, the answer in New York may be different than the answer in Kentucky. And the answer in New York City may be different than the answer in upstate New York, okay? But just shutting everything down. Here's what we're going to get to the point of, Nick. We're going to have more deaths by suicide and diabetes and alcoholism than we are from the coronavirus if we stay on the trajectory that my governor chose. And when you shut something down, what you owe the people is your criteria for shutting it down so we can understand your criteria for opening it back up. And then we can know whether to buy one week of toilet paper or one year of toilet paper. Like people first started laughing at the folks who were buying all this toilet paper. And I agree there might be more important things if you're locked up at your house than toilet paper. But was it irrational to buy four months of toilet paper when the government was saying, oh, it's just going to be a week. And then they say now it's going to be two weeks until we open it Easter. And now we're saying April 30th. My wife's got the best analogy for it. She says we're in airport mode. We're sitting in the airport and they come on the intercom and says your flight's been delayed 25 minutes. They give you no expectation of whether there will be another delay and what their criteria was for delaying it. Then they come back on, well, we've added another hour to your delay. And pretty soon they keep incrementally telling you what they should have told you to begin with, and it canceled. And now you're looking for a hotel. That's the mode we're in. And we are owed the truth. If the governors are working under certain assumptions, tell us what those assumptions are. And then we can decide if it's valid. The other thing is our governor early on, I'm not sure if it was the governor or the local county judge that ordered this, but the governor certainly took credit for it. He sent a sheriff's deputy to somebody's house to make sure they didn't leave their house because they suspected they had the virus. And there are different versions of the stories. There always are. The wife of the man who they sought to restrain says that the hospital never even gave them results of the test and still wouldn't share them with them. But social distancing, great idea, not shaking hands, wearing the mask, not congregating a lot, self-isolation if you've got some of the light symptoms. Those are all good ideas, but when you order those at the point of a gun, now you've got tyranny. They go from being good ideas to being tyrannical. We are not China. The stuff we saw in China two months ago that appalled us. We always criticized them for cracking down on the churches. Now you can't go to church in Kentucky, and people have accepted it. They've accepted it somewhat out of trying to do their social obligation, their well-meaning people. But the fact that the governor has ordered it and is willing, there was a church that was putting together food and boxes so that they could distribute it to people who couldn't get out from the houses who were told to self-quarantine. The local health department came with the police and shut it down because they said they weren't observing the social distancing when they were putting the boxes together. That's a problem for me. Let's talk about the economic ramifications of this. The national economy has effectively been shut down by all of this. What do you think? You're libertarian, leaning. You are limited government. When the government mandates the closing of the economy, what is the government's role or responsibility to make sure that people have enough food, have enough health care, things like that? And then how does that, what you would say are the legitimate role of government in something like this? How does that match up with the two trillion plus spending bill that was just passed? Some of my colleagues make a compelling argument that this is a taking by the government. When you take somebody's livelihood by restraining them, that you owe them some renumeration for those damages. And that's a compelling argument to me. The problem we have here is that it's the governors who are taking and the natural feedback mechanism to keep them from taking too much would be that when they shut their own economy down, they deprive their state of government of revenues and they can't pay the state workers. And so the governors would, there's this feedback that would incentivize them to take a rational approach instead of just shutting everything down. What we're doing now is the federal government is making people whole or trying to make people whole with this bill. $1,200 ain't gonna do it. It doesn't give you your life back. And so this third coronavirus bill, the two trillion dollar bill is basically setting up a moral hazard for the governors. The governors who haven't shut everything down now have an incentive to shut more down and the governors who shut everything down may be an overreaction. They're now being told to keep it shut down and incentivize to do that. And so I think we've broken the feedback loop. If the state government takes something from you, the state government should give it back to you. It's not to say the federal government doesn't have a role here in fighting the virus. I believe they do. What is, you know, in terms of the money that is being shoveled out now or will eventually be shoveled out to people, you know, some of it is going directly to individuals. A lot of it, a majority of it is going to businesses, corporations, other entities. You know, what's the most egregious aspect for you? Like what sums up the cronyism that you're talking about? What's the worst part of that? Well, you know, a lot of people have pointed out that Pelosi got $25 million for the Kennedy Center. And that is deplorable for somebody to stick something like that in there. But a trillion is a million millions, okay? Like you could have a million, million dollar earmarks in this bill and it still wouldn't make up half of the bill. Like, and we're going to find out eventually what all the earmarks were. But that's not the most egregious part of this bill in my opinion. Let's just do a rough top-line calculation here. The government, this stimulus package is $6 trillion. It's either going to be spent or loaned or injected into the economy. $6 trillion, there are 100 million families, okay? Let's say the average family is three and a half people. 100 million families in the United States divide $6 trillion by $100 million. You get $60,000 per household of spending. Okay, and like, you know what, three and a half trillion or $4 trillion is coming out of Fed money, right? Yeah, yeah, right. The $4 trillion is treasury and Fed, exactly. So two from Congress, four from the Fed. That should tell you who runs this government, right? Like, you know, already, so we complain that Congress really only, only, like, only decides how a trillion dollars gets spent every year. Three trillion is entitlements. Now we're talking about four trillion that's from a totally different set here. But back to my math, $6 trillion total divided by 100 million families is $60,000 per family. Okay, they're offering $1,200 payments to each working adult if they qualify. And then like 500 per child or whatever, a family might expect to get $3,000, but $60,000 is going somewhere on their behalf. That, what's the problem here? That's like 95% of the money is going somewhere else. Where is it going? Yeah. And who's going to be responsible for the $60,000? The taxpayer, and most of the taxes come from people, not from companies, not from the corporate taxes. The taxpayer is on the line for $60,000, yet they're going to receive at most maybe $3,000 to benefit from this. I'm saying this is the largest transfer of wealth in human history. It would make FDR blush, and the Roman emperors would have no idea how to pull this off, this kind of plunder. What would be a better, what is your actual alternative to that? Okay, yeah. What should we be doing in Thomas Massey? You are the speaker of the house, or even better, you're the head of the Fed, so you're actually calling the shots. What should we be doing? Well, if I was the head of the Fed, I would turn it off, but let's go back to speaker of the house. Or let's just say this bill had been debated in a committee and amended in a committee, and I was on the committee of jurisdiction, right? Why do I have to imagine that I'm somebody else to have an effect on the government? I'm a freaking congressman, right? But you expose the reality the speaker's calling all the shots in a few lobbyists. Okay, so let's say I had a seat at the table like the founders envisioned, and I was on a committee of jurisdiction. I would point out that every American needs tested, and if the test costs $100 to perform, which is a high estimate, considering how many of these tests are eventually going to happen, $100 times 350 million people is $35 billion. That's one half of 1% of $6 trillion. Like for one half of 1% of what we're spending in this bill, you could test every American, okay? And actually you could probably test them all 10 times, because we're going to get the price of this test down to probably $10, okay? This is going to be like a pregnancy test or something. Eventually, and we're going to need something like that. So what would Thomas Massey do? Thomas Massey would have a Manhattan project, okay? When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, did we come up with a $2 trillion stimulus package, or did we declare war on our enemies? We declared war on our enemies. Why have we not declared war on this virus? Why is our first instinct to make sure that the rich people keep all their riches, okay? Why is that our first instinct? We need to be fighting the virus. So let's do a Manhattan project against this virus. Let's do a Manhattan project that comes up with a 3D printed ventilator, right? Let's do a Manhattan project that figures out how to get everybody a weak supply of masks. Everybody, not just the healthcare workers. Let's work on the vaccine. Let's have a Manhattan project on the vaccine. That's where all the money should be going, because until we defeat this virus, what you're proposing is we're going to have multiple $2 trillion bills, and we're not even addressing the problem. I really do believe everybody, whether you're a celebrity or a politician or a grocery store bagger, should be able to get this test. And right now, that's not the case. There's a bill passed that said we're going to pay for them or that somebody's health insurance will pay for it. Nobody has to pay for the test. What the hell good is that if you can't get the test, if somebody's going to pay for it? So we need to, that's what I would do. I would declare a war on the virus, not a war on our taxpayers. What, you know, your colleague, Justin Amash tweeted last week, you know, that 10 years ago, the Tea Party had, you know, risen up after the bailouts that started under George Bush and Republicans and continued and expanded under Obama, Barack Obama and Democratic Congresses and, you know, bipartisan Congresses. He said, you know, the Tea Party is over. Is there any possibility of spending restraint left or the limitation of government? You know, and we can argue over whether or not it's legitimate or not, but I mean, you know, where are we? You came into office, you know, through a special election in 2012, affiliated very heavily with the Tea Party. You know, you know, it was, you know, all of the Republicans in the House and most of them in the Senate voted in favor of this. Is there any party that stands up for, you know, reducing spending anytime soon? You know, you saw this with Tarp, too. There were a lot of people that ultimately voted for that who at the time said they were conservative, but they were celebrating that. They were rushing back to vote for it, right? And, you know, here's the one thing that you have to look and under, you have to ask why was the world so mad at me or Washington, D.C. for being one dissenter? I didn't delay the bill a bit, right? And because there was no recorded vote, you know that the president and Kevin McCarthy announced at the bill signing that this was unanimous, that there was no dissension. Now that's about as ridiculous as saying I didn't express an interest in joining the debate on this bill, right? Obviously there was a dissenter. I was, you know, not everybody, but a lot of people were hating me for 24 hours. And by the way, I gave them the opportunity to hate me because I telegraphed to the leadership. I didn't telegraph, I just flat out told them. I'm going to ask for a vote. I gave them notice so they could get a quorum there so that I wouldn't be delaying the bill, so that we could do it constitutionally. But in doing that, I opened myself up to more hate. Now why did they hate it? Why is 434 to 1 so much worse than 435 to 0? Because the 1 gives the people hope. The 1 gives the Tea Party hope that not everybody has sold out, but there is a chance that you could get somebody in Washington DC that wouldn't go along with the nonsense. And so what I've discovered, Nick, in being this one person, when I first stepped out there in front, I had longtime supporters texting me. I mean, they've got my cell phone number, they've had it for 10 years. They're calling me up saying, don't do this, what are you doing? You're crazy. You're just bad idea. Don't stop this. We need this. But within the course of 24 hours, I had some of those same people text me and say, I'm sorry, I didn't realize what you were doing and how important it was. But what I was able to do by being one person that people could hang their objections on and say, I do this little thought in the back of my head that maybe this bill ain't the right thing to do. If one congressman, I mean, there wasn't even a senator that was able to express an objection. If one congressman can do it, then maybe I'm not crazy for thinking $2 trillion is crazy, right? And so anyways, I think the Tea Party's still alive and I've seen it raise up here in the last 72 hours. Can you say just as a final thought, is there anything good that's going to come out of this? I mean, this is an unprecedented kind of development in American history. It's not war. It is not an economic collapse like in the Great Depression or even in 2008 or something like that. But is there anything good that's coming out of this? I mean, we've shut down the economy. People are scared. A certain number of people are going to die. But is there something good that we can, do you think that will come out of this moment in history? We'll probably wrestle with this virus for a couple years. Okay, it's going to flare up and come back and it's not going to go away like Ebola or whatever. That was a scare. I think the good thing that will come out of it is maybe a more practical or scientific-based response and economic-based response to the next time this happens. This is a test run. And we found out that a lot of people will do some things we didn't think they would do, including our government. And depending on who writes the history books here, hopefully they'll go back and sift through the data and they'll find out that some of the things that were done were wrong and some of the things that should have been done weren't done. And that'll prepare us in the future for this. I'm hopeful about that if we haven't wrecked this country and our economy by then. But my problem is there's so much sort of socialism and central planning and big government. You've got government deciding what's essential and what's not. That's the definition of central planning. You've got government telling you when to go to work and how long to work and what things you can buy and what you can't buy. That's central planning on steroids. I hope we have enough data and I hope there are enough people that can look objectively at that data when it's over with to show that the aspects of this that saved us were free market and innovation and individuals and not the government. Maybe when this is over with people have less confidence in the government, a realistic view of what government's role is. I can be hopeful about that. The danger is that people get a little taste of socialism. $1,200 is the cheese and the trap here, I've been telling people. And if people realize it was the cheese and the trap when it's over with, then that's good. If they don't, then it's bad because they're going to be asking for $2,400 after that. I'm hopeful overall, Nick. All right, well, I'm glad to hear that and hopefully we'll be through this as quickly as possible. I want to thank Congressman Thomas Massey for talking to reason. Congressman Massey, thanks very much. Thanks for having me on your show, Nick.