 From an economic perspective, I'm not sure the federal government needs to put a label or a purpose on it. I don't mind block grant. You need some things like maintenance of effort rules, can't use it for tax cuts, maybe can't use it to fund your pensions or something like that. I think then almost every state's going to get to everything on Josh's list. When it comes to the label, I think there's some economics to the choice of the label, but I think the ratio of politics to economics is even higher. So if people are happier with an unconditional block grant and let the states decide, I'm happy with that. If people are happy, if you call it healthcare or education, I'm happy with that too. Certainly in the transition in 2008, as we were putting the Recovery Act together, we originally had an unconditional block grant. Our political advisors said, oh, you'll never be able to sell that, make it sound better, and we changed the label to health and education. We knew a bunch of that money was fungible, and we didn't mind that a bunch of that money was fungible. So I think there's some economics here, but I think whatever message gets the money out is fine with me personally.