 I think we've got two groups of press coming in, so we'll bring the lights out in a small talk for a minute. I just think that in me, you're sort of the wrong thing. You know, the very approach of states that are subject to bring this to the yetis, sending power to the program, I think. It's been dishonestly portrayed that 17% of this bill represents actual tax increase. And 31% of it represents simply better compliance and collecting money from people who, under the existing laws, owe taxes to the government. And the rest of it happens to be actual reforms that we think are correcting unintended benefits or advantages that have come into being through legislation here and there permitted an opening for technically to gain something. But the main purpose of what's going on here in this whole combination is that this combination represents a $380 billion reduction in deficits over three years. And 280 of that is in spending outlays, not in this tax package. Incidentally, this tax package wouldn't be the greatest single tax increase if it was all tax increase instead of just 17%. But the thing is, what we're really talking about is the necessity to reduce the deficits and thus get interest rates to continue coming down to get the economy moving again. And this will do it. And those who are opposing it cannot hide from the fact that they are supporting increased deficits and higher interest rates. Mr. President, on that note, do you think John will continue to talk in recent years? He's not running for president himself. He's not running for president himself. I didn't know the job was up to Greg. You think you're going to pass this tax increase package? We're doing our best. How does it look now? I think, you know, I can play it better after the meeting.