A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Seven Years Ago Today: Vote for Obamacare in the House

by 9 Comments

Chronology of Obamacare

I’m never sure whether to use a stock photo of medical stuff or a stock photo of money when I write these health care posts.

My old health care posts are suddenly relevant again. Seven years ago, on March 21, 2010, the House passed Obamacare. I had a post on the subject which reflected  a number of my thoughts following the more or less year long debate that led up to the passage of that legislation. As I said at the time, I didn’t think Obamacare was well designed but I didn’t think a well-designed system could pass Congress. And the status quo was awful and getting worse.

We’ve, once again, been hearing about how everything would be cool with the health care system if only the free market was unshackled. Here is why I’m all but certain that won’t work:

To date, nobody has been able to direct my attention to an example of a successful market-based system of health care; leading me to be skeptical of whether such a thing can exist. One country that sometimes comes up in this context is Singapore. However, while its system makes use of private insurance, it also ensures affordability largely through compulsory savings and price controls.

Singapore’s system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized catastrophic health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as “actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country” to keep costs in check[.]

Markets are very good at allocating resources. However, to function properly, it seems to me that buyers need to have good information and the ability to walk away from a transaction. That’s a problem in health care negotiations. Health care decisions involve analysis of medical information that’s generally beyond the understanding of most people. And, even if you can rely on your doctor or otherwise master the medical end of the decision making process, medical pricing is often ridiculously opaque. Try calling up half a dozen hospitals and trying to get the actual price of a hip replacement. Even if they’re willing to tell you, there are likely to be an array of prices depending on who’s asking. And those will be qualified prices because any number of contingencies can affect the price, even in the middle of the surgery. Then you have the problem of getting an insurer to be clear, up front, about the terms of the insuring contract and then honoring those terms after the fact. The insurer operates from a position of strength, collecting premiums for years when there are no significant health issues, then being able to withhold a determination of whether it’s going to pay for a procedure until after the procedure is complete. Finally, any negotiating options you have in the ordinary situation pretty much go out the window once you’re in an emergency situation. It’s like negotiating with a gun to your head.

At the time, we were spending We were spending 16% of our considerable GDP on health care already. We were spending twice as much per person on health care as other countries. We were already paying for something like 45% of those costs from public funds. And costs were increasing. (And no, despite what you may have heard, medical malpractice lawsuits weren’t the prime or even substantial cause of these increases.) Despite spending half as much, those other countries had health care results that are comparable or, in some cases, superior to the U.S.

Can we do better? Sure, almost every other industrialized country is. But, for ideological and venal reasons, Congress is not looking to copy systems that are already working better than ours was in 2010 or in 2017.

Trumpcare Plan and CBO Score Released

by 7 Comments

Healthcare in America feels like an eternal struggle, both in terms of settling on a policy goal and in terms of actually getting healthcare when you’re sick. I’m a small business owner and so, in terms of healthcare, not much better than being self-employed. My options prior to the ACA were not great. I’ve never been in love with the ACA as it came through, but it seemed better overall than the pre-Obamacare options. I was paying more and didn’t have great coverage. But, as a matter of broader policy, more people were covered and, I got the sense that, personally, if I or a member of my family got really sick, we’d have a lot stronger of a safety net with the ACA than without.

Detractors oppose Obamacare for a variety of reasons and with different levels of ferocity. There are free-market purists. There are those who get indignant when they see benefits going to the “undeserving poor.” And, there are folks who can’t see anything but the insurance mandate. I’m sure there are other reasons, but those are the three broad categories.

I think the market purists are misguided, primarily because health care isn’t a widget and doesn’t respond well to market forces. Procedures that are relatively straight forward and mostly optional are the exception — things like cosmetic surgery and lasik eye surgery are probably examples where the market works well. But, for a lot of health care, procedures aren’t optional — so, it’s not an arm’s length transaction where the customer can reasonably just go without if he or she doesn’t have the money. The necessity of various tests and procedures aren’t something a layman can reasonably evaluate without the help of a professional. And the pricing is beyond opaque. Try getting a price quote on a hip replacement, let alone a weird murmur that’s making you feel dizzy. The ability to walk away from a bad deal, knowledge of the value of the product to one’s self, and a good idea of the price are all pretty critical in creating efficient market transactions. On the subject of markets, I’ve said before that I don’t think the “selling across state lines” approach is going to generate competition and better value. Rather, it’s going to result in a regulatory race to the bottom where, like credit card companies, health insurers are all going to locate in whichever state will try to land those insurance company jobs by offering the most pro-industry, anti-consumer laws.

Not liking Obamacare is one thing, but the fact is that it was passed to address a problem. Health care was becoming more out of reach for more and more people by the year. Other countries with a socialized approach to providing care have (broadly speaking) been able to generate better health outcomes while spending less overall money. (I’m willing to concede that, for the very wealthy, the U.S. probably offers the best health care.) Now we have the Trumpcare “replacement” offered by the Republicans in Congress. (Trump apparently doesn’t want his name attached to this — which is remarkable given the number of substandard products to which he’s eager to attach his name.) The Congressional Budget Office score is out, and it’s not pretty.

The Congressional Budget Office on Monday projected that the House leadership’s American Health Care Act would result in 24 million Americans losing their health insurance while raising premiums for those covered on the individual market. Their bill would lower federal deficits by $337 billion over 10 years, largely as a result of cuts to Medicaid that would reduce its enrollment by 14 million, according to the estimate. Average premiums would rise by as much as 20 percent in 2018 and 2019 before falling in later years.

The premiums would generally fall for young, healthier people and rise for older people who tend to have more health problems.

Democrats have focused on the fact that the proposed legislation would result in a tax cut for those making more than $250,000 per year and a significant tax cut for the very wealthy. It repeals certain Obamacare taxes for “couples making more than $250,000, like a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and a 0.9 percent surtax on wages. . . . Repealing them would cost about $275 billion over the next decade; which is to say, it would transfer $275 billion from public-health spending to the richest 1 or 2 percent.”

Other provisions, like health savings accounts, are nice if you have a lot of extra cash and don’t have significant health problems. But, for most Americans, those are going to do little or nothing in terms of paying your serious medical bills.

I know I’ve barely scratched the surface here, and — in any event — I’m not your best resource for health care policy discussions. (For that, I’d recommend The Incidental Economist.) But, I’ve noticed over the years that memories fade and hyperlinks rot. So, it’s been useful to hit the highlights on my own blog where I can generally find it again as the years pass.

 

SB 121: Adverse Possession for Non-Profits

by 6 Comments

I was going to use a picture of an animated doll and make a joke about how I was referring to a different kind of adverse possession. But that seemed creepy, so I didn’t. You’re welcome.

Sen. Koch has introduced SB 121 regarding adverse possession. Adverse possession is a somewhat odd but venerable concept in real estate law that essentially says that if you use someone else’s real estate long enough and they let you, it becomes yours.  One can imagine, in days of yore, an absentee landowner with vast tracts of land who was so inattentive that someone else farmed it for a decade or two without noticing. In that case, maybe it’s best that someone doing something productive with the land becomes the owner. I don’t know if that’s exactly how the concept became enshrined in our law, but I think it’s probably pretty close.

In any case, there is now a formula of elements that have to be present before land can be adversely possessed. The elements are sometimes framed in different ways, but they include the fact that the possession must be open, actual, continuous for ten years or more, and adverse to the person who holds title to the land.  There is another requirement that the legislature added to the common law element in the 1920s: a person claiming possession has to pay taxes on the land for that period. Often this element gets fudged a bit — in that, a fair amount of adverse possession takes place around the edges: say, you put up a fence that goes over your property line into the neighbor’s real estate. You don’t pay any more for the extra land, but you (and the government) think you’re paying what you owe. In that case, the taxation element will be satisfied. But, if you squat on a random tract of land, don’t get kicked off but don’t pay taxes, you won’t acquire the land.

There is an exception to the taxation element currently in place for governmental entities – presumably on the assumption that they wouldn’t normally have to pay real estate taxes in any case, so it shouldn’t be an element of adverse possession for those entities. SB 121 extends that logic to “501” entities who wouldn’t be required to pay taxes to enjoy adverse possession. (The number “501” comes from section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code where you’ll find various types of tax-exempt organizations, such as the 501(c)(3) charitable organizations.)

This certainly isn’t my area of expertise, but I think this goes a little too far. I understand the logic, but I think the 501 entities still generally have to pay taxes on real estate if it isn’t being used for an exempt purpose. (Maybe a generally charitable organization has property that it’s using for straight up profiteering. Maybe a church opens a gym and makes money off of membership fees.) So, I’d be inclined to recommend an exempt purpose requirement to get the 501 entity out from under the tax payment requirements.

HB 1039: Right-of-Way in a Roundabout

by 2 Comments

The bill title sounds like it could make a good movie or book title for some reason. But I digress. The

Look kids: Big Ben! Parliament!

Senate is considering Rep. Torr’s HB 1039 on second reading. It’s part of the Carmelization of our roadways and governs the right of way in roundabouts. (I see that the legislation does away with the term “rotary traffic island.”)

I had a little trouble visualizing what was going on from the language. But, it sounds like if you’re dealing with two or more lanes in the roundabout, cars have to yield to long or wide trucks (40 feet long and/or 10 feet wide) and if there are two long trucks in the roundabout, the one on the right has to slow down and yield to the one on the left.

Like I said, I might have this wrong, but it sounds like a situation where the long truck might not be keeping to its lane very well. The duty to yield doesn’t apply when the truck is entering the roundabout from the side. If it’s only one lane wide, then I don’t see where yielding within the roundabout would come up. And, if it’s separate lanes, ordinarily there wouldn’t be any yielding because you each have your own lane. But, if you have a long truck and a tight circle, staying in your lane might be a little tough.

Still, if there is a collision, I wonder how the negligence issue shakes out — the truck is going to say that the car had a duty to yield while the car is going to say that the truck had a duty to stay in its lane.

The Legislative Services Agency Turns 50

by 3 Comments

The Indiana Law Blog has a post noting that LSA is having a celebration of its 50th anniversary tomorrow (March 7). Marcia was there at its founding in 1967 (and worked for its predecessor). Its creation came during a time of legislative reform generally. The agency is nonpartisan and is responsible for drafting legislation, calculating the fiscal impact of proposed legislation, and providing legislators — to the extent possible — with unbiased advice. Legislators obviously have partisan interests to serve as well, and for this, they have caucus attorneys who can and sometimes do draft legislation. But, for the most part, the bulk of the legislation is drafted by LSA. I’m biased, but I’d put the clarity and functionality of our Indiana Code up against  any state’s, and it’s far more usable and understandable than the United States Code. (As an LSA staffer, it was not my job to offer policy advice. So, I won’t – at this point – comment on the merit of the policies reflected in that Code.)

I was only there from 1996 – 1999, but the agency had a significant impact on me. Legislative drafting exercises some different muscles than the more narrative brief writing or drafting contracts (which is, stylistically,  maybe a hybrid between briefs and legislation). It forces a precision that can be helpful. (In many ways, I think legislative drafting and computer programming have a lot in common.) It gave me an interest and an insight into the legislative process which (in combination with my unpursued dream of being a newspaper columnist) morphed into this blog. And, it gave me some marketable skills that I was able to parlay into the job I have now.

Most of all, I was fortunate to work with some really great people. (My boss was kind enough to arrange to have himself appointed judge for a day so he could be the officiant when Amy and I got married.) I think the list of people who worked there when I was there is getting pretty small, but I think the culture of quiet diligence and professionalism still endures, and that’s a tremendous asset to the State.

So, from DI #93, Happy 50th Birthday to LSA!

 

Another Study: Vouchers are not improving education

by 1 Comment

Indiana General Assembly school vouchers

Who are you going to believe, a comforting ideology or “experts” with their “analysis of available evidence”?

A new study out of Stanford concludes that voucher programs do not improve educational outcomes. (Unfortunately, I read this immediately after reading a piece that said contrary evidence will cause ideologically committed people to adhere even more firmly to their factually unsupported beliefs. So, maybe I’m doing more harm than good by sharing the Standford report.)

Studies of voucher programs in several U.S. cities, the states of Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and in Chile and India, find limited improvements at best in student achievement and school district performance from even large-scale programs. In the few cases in which test scores increased, other factors, namely increased public accountability, not private school competition, seem to be more likely drivers. And high rates of attrition from private schools among voucher users in several studies raises concerns.

. . .

In the only area in which there is evidence of small improvements in voucher schools—in high school graduation and college enrollment rates—there are no data to show whether the gains are the result of schools shedding lower-performing students or engaging in positive practices. Also, high school graduation rates have risen sharply in public schools across the board in the last 10 years, with those increases much larger than the small effect estimated on graduation rates from attending a voucher school.

. . .

The report suggests that giving every parent and student a great “choice” of educational offerings is better accomplished by supporting and strengthening neighborhood public schools with a menu of proven policies, from early childhood education to after-school and summer programs to improved teacher pre-service training to improved student health and nutrition programs. All of these yield much higher returns than the minor, if any, gains that have been estimated for voucher students. (Emphasis added)

The report also notes that voucher evaluations often do not reflect the hidden costs — such as erosion of the quality of the teaching profession by private school practices such as hiring younger, lower cost teachers and not compensating them at a long-term level necessary to sustain them throughout their career. This depletes the level of experience available in the pool of teachers. It also notes that voucher schools are able to avoid retaining higher cost students and that there are administrative costs associated with managing voucher programs. It also argues that there is a cost to voucher programs in the form of distracting from potentially more successful strategies like early childhood education and nutrition programs.

Who Should Bear the Cost of Public Records?

by 1 Comment

The Indiana Law Blog has a post discussing legislation that imposes a fee for public records searches and an editorial by the South Bend Tribune critical of that legislation. The fees in question at this time have to do with paying for time spent by public employees compiling and reviewing responsive documents. Either way you go on this sort of thing has pros and cons.

The editorial quotes Rep. Pierce:

As for the concern about public employees — paid by taxpayers, mind you — spending time on such searches when they have other jobs to do, we think Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, put it best: “They are our employees. They work for us. To have to pay to come in and pay to get access to your records I just think is not a good principle, not a good policy.”

That’s at least a little disingenuous. The governmental entity has limited resources with which to accomplish a lot of different missions. Time spent on responding to public records requests is time not spent on those other missions. That’s not entirely inappropriate — providing the public with governmental records is one of the necessary functions. But there are limits. To get a little hyperbolic in order to illustrate the point, if one citizen made a records request that required 100% of the government’s resources in order to compile, review, and provide the response; nobody would believe that the one citizen should have the power to unilaterally hijack all of the government’s resources.  Most requests are routine, and it’s appropriate for government to respond to those requests in the ordinary course of business without charging the citizen extra for processing the request. But, at a certain point, the requests can become burdensome to the governmental entity in a way that is really not fair to other taxpayers who expect that their tax dollars are paying for services other than responding to public records requests.

Where that line is and how to draw it is difficult to say, but I don’t blame members of the General Assembly for considering the matter. I don’t think considering the question should necessarily  dismissed as an assault on the public’s right to know.

“School Choice” is like diverting money from parks to backyard swingsets and calling it “recreational choice”

by 10 Comments

There is more to the “public” part of public schools than merely government funding. It denotes a population with a common interest. We are not merely a collection of individuals, workers, consumers, or taxpayers. The concept of citizens and the public are closely aligned. Public education isn’t important merely because it serves the public, it is important because it creates the public. The school’s role as a public institution is something that often gets left out or ignored when the subject of “school choice” and vouchers are brought up. Disregard of the public school’s role in creating the public is a fundamental flaw in the “money-follows-the-child” model of funding education.

Consider other institutions that help form the public such as parks and libraries: Parks give all of us green space and places to come together where we can interact with others in the community. They help define and shape the look and feel of communities and neighborhoods; they provide environmental, aesthetic, and recreational benefits to citizens; they help enhance property values; and they attract people to the community. A lot of that value would be destroyed if lawmakers decided to divert park money to individual citizens so they could spend it on backyard swing set projects, bowling alleys, and green space at their churches. You can expect proponents of such an idea would market it as “recreational choice.” Who doesn’t like choice?! Even if money was going to citizens who never used the parks in the first place to fund projects they had previously funded out of their own pockets, proponents would divide up the cost-per-citizen and claim that “recreational choice” is saving us money.

Similarly libraries are more than just books, videos, and computers. They are places where patrons can come together face to face, often for the purpose of engaging in civil discourse. Libraries help build communities. Haves and have-nots have access to information and librarians who can assist in navigating that information. Local libraries maintain collections specific to the community. They promote democratic values and are often housed in architecture that is notable in its own right. The public library was an American innovation. As David Morris noted, “Europeans had subscription libraries for 100 years before the United States was born. But in April 1833, the good citizens of Peterborough, New Hampshire created a radically new concept—a public library.”  “Media choice vouchers” that citizens could spend on books and videos at Amazon or at their church libraries wouldn’t be the same. Maybe citizens could get access to the same books and videos. Perhaps they could get more of them at a cheaper rate. But the public would, nevertheless, be diminished.

The more we turn ourselves from members of the public into an atomized collection of individuals, the weaker our communities and democratic institutions become. Dressing up these decisions in the language of “choice” does not change this fact.

On Historical Perspective and Political Discussion

by 2 Comments

Idea: Historical perspective shapes political discussion.

It’s difficult to talk to someone about how things are if you don’t share, or at least recognize, their understanding of how things have been. Anyone who has been reading this blog for very long will probably have stumbled across me ranting about the “kids these days” genre of social aggrievement. (I happen to think kids these days are pretty good and that, in any event, every generation seems predisposed to belly ache about the younger generations. Get off my lawn!)

I have similar feelings with respect to lamentations about “how things are nowadays.” Things are generally good nowadays. (Though it’s tough to escape the fear that things could rapidly become much worse, particularly given the current crop of lawmakers.) But, my opinions about relative merits of today versus yesterday aside, it’s tough to even discuss the subject if you don’t know what version of “yesterday” a person is using as a benchmark.

I like to read Tipsy’s blog because: a) he’s a friend; and b) he posts stuff I would never come across on my own. Today’s offering includes some quotes from David Gelertner. His benchmark of the history of journalism is maybe somewhere in the 50s or 60s, and he is unhappy with the liberal trajectory of journalists caused by journalism schools:

[On the Cultural Revolution of the past 50 years] the growing importance of education schools and of journalism schools were three of the most important aspects of this big change. The transformation of journalism from a battered-hat group of rough-speaking, hard-drinking, widely-admired “ordinary guys” who were thought to be mostly conservatives to penetrating, opinionated intellectuals who are mainly liberal is a major story in itself.

This caught me off guard, not because of the “liberal media” accusation but because, when thinking of the historical progression of journalism, I wouldn’t have started with the 50s guy. In my mind (and I’m not saying this is at all accurate), I have dim thoughts of publications associated with 16th century London coffee houses, the political essays of the Founders (and libelous muck by the likes of James Callender),  and then to what’s probably my real historical benchmark for journalism — the yellow journalism of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst.

With that as a benchmark, in my mind, the import of journalism schools is a progression from Hearst’s “you furnish me the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war” brand of yellow journalism to a more serious profession, grounded in the importance of objective facts. This is something I regard as generally positive, though I do have my opinions on the shortcomings of “objectivity.” It creates a blind spot by ignoring that every narrative has a bias, and it leads to a “both-sides” style of reporting that has trouble grappling with the situation where one side has a great deal more substance behind its arguments. On my own, thinking about that history, I barely would have registered the icon of the grizzled, alcoholic “common sense” noir journalist of the 50s and 60s. Without recognizing that as a point of departure, a hypothetical conversation between myself and Mr. Gelertner on the merits of modern versus historical journalism probably wouldn’t be very productive.

I have similar issues when he talks about the history of citizens, religion, and government:

[W]e all know that faith in the Judeo-Christian religions is dramatically weaker than it used to be. But human beings are religious animals, and most will find an alternative if the conventional choices are gone.

The readiest replacement nowadays for lost traditional religion is political ideology. But a citizen with faith in a political position, instead of rational belief, is a potential disaster for democracy.

I’m not sure what his historical benchmark is here, 1950s America again? But my thoughts on the subject are a mashup of places and times. You have a lot of societies where government and religion were the same: Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome, and China come to mind. Right now, I’m reading about the period where political tensions between the (Constantinople-centered) Christians of the Roman Empire and the Zoroastrians of the Persian Empire led to greater religious fervor in both places (coupled with persecution of minority religions). The battle between those political powers weakened both and opened the door to the rise and spread of Islam which prevailed, in part, by practicing religious tolerance — particularly with respect to Christianity and Judaism. Christian American — and especially Judeo-Christian America — is a blip on the historical landscape.

I would not be surprised if Mr. Gelertner is smarter than me, knows more about history than I do, and/or knows more about religion than I do. But I think it’s safe to say neither of  us is dumb or ignorant in these areas. Yet, we probably come to radically different conclusions about how today compares to yesterday, simply because yesterday is so vast in terms of its potential scope of places and times.

I think this is a common problem for political discussions generally. So, find out what your counterpart’s vision of “yesterday” might be.

 

Challenge to Election 2016 under the “Guarantee Clause” of the Constitution

by 3 Comments

Friend of the blog, and accomplished Indiana lawyer, Mark Small has become involved in a case challenging the 2016 Presidential Election. Pro se petitioners from Massachusetts petitioned the First Circuit for a writ of mandamus to conduct a new election, alleging that Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government and protection against invasion. Petitioners allege, in effect, that the interference of Russia with the U.S. elections constitutes an invasion that has deprived them of a Republican form of government. The First Circuit denied their request and they have appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Mark has since taken up their cause and has filed a motion (pdf) for the United States Supreme Court to appoint a special master. The petition is currently set for consideration at the Supreme Court’s conference of March 17, 2017. A friend predicted that the Court will decline to hear the case “under the ancient rusted can of worms doctrine.” I tend to agree with that prediction. Then again,  I’m also one of those guys who rolls his eyes and the idea of playing the lottery. That’s based on sound mathematics. And, yet, someone in town bought a ticket that won $435 million.

It’s an interesting idea that is founded on the premise that Russia engaged in cyberwar to alter the election to place its chosen candidate in the Presidency and those sympathetic to him in the House and Senate. (I acknowledge that this “hacked the election” rhetoric is a bit slippery — hacking the actual voting machines is one thing; setting up fake Twitter accounts to promote desired messages is a different thing. There are potentially different levels of interference in the spectrum in between.) Those same bodies refuse to investigate activity from which they benefit. Where is a state or a citizen of a state to go for relief? The argument here is that it’s the judiciary. (Though, you eventually run into that possibly apocryphal quote from Jackson that “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”)

Small argues not only that the judiciary is the branch of government that can provide relief in this situation but also that they have the authority, through a special master appointment, to investigate allegations of election tampering. He first notes that the Founders were extremely concerned by the prospect of foreign powers meddling in our affairs. At the time our Constitution was created, this kind of political intrigue was very much a current memory. Small quotes Hamilton in Federalist 68 when he says:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Hamilton was writing about how the electoral college was designed to guard against foreign influence. But, Small points out that the electoral college is not independently elected as the Founders anticipated and they are elected “part and parcel, in the same process as that by which vote are cast for the President and Vice-President.” He turns to Madison’s Federalist 43 and its interpretation of the “Invasion Clause” for additional support. Madison said that the provision served to protect states against “foreign hostility” and against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. He reads this passage as supporting the proposition that the judiciary has a role in implementing the protections of the guarantee clause:

In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends.

The role of the judiciary is particularly important where the executive and legislative branches are compromised (in this case, they are alleged to be the beneficiaries of Russian interference). The solution is to appoint a special master — sort of an ad hoc investigative arm of the judiciary — to do the following:

a.) Identify those officials, agencies, departments and offices of the United States Government engaged in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data pertaining
to cyber intrusions, and mitigation of effects of intrusions conducted and/or facilitated within the United States by the Government of Russia and or its agents in the year 2016.

b.) Obtain from those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices, and, subject to the discretion of the Special Master, obtain from third parties, whose identities are disclosed to the Special Master, any and all summaries, analyses or reports, classified or unclassified, related to cyber intrusions, more probably than not conducted directly or indirectly by the Government of Russia, and that were determined by those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices to have been related to the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.

c.) If the Special Master determines the Government of Russia more probably than not committed one or more cyber intrusions involving the Presidential and
Congressional elections in one or more precincts/districts in one or more states in the year 2016, enquire of polling organizations and the election officials in each
of the affected precincts/districts/states to determine the possible impact of those intrusions.

d.) Prepare for the in camera review by the Supreme Court of a report of the findings of the Special Master conforming, to a reasonable extent, to the
standards of Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 as to whether there were cyber intrusions more probably than not committed by the Government of Russia
which may have impacted one or more of the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.

e.) If such intrusions probably occurred and possibly caused such impacts, the report would identify any individuals, whether agents of the Government of
Russia or others who probably aided or abetted the intrusions, detail the probable type and extent of each intrusion, describe the possible impact of each intrusion
or pattern of intrusions, and identify the particular relevant election races.

If the results of the investigation showed that the margin of victory was the result of illegal activity and/or espionage and aggression by a foreign power, then the Courts would have the authority to fashion equitable relief including potentially a re-election.

Like I said, I view this as a long shot but, as I also said, someone is hundreds of millions of dollars richer than they were last week because they are far more optimistic than I am.