The People's Veto and Beyond: Key Legislative Updates in 132nd Maine Legislature

Dive into the complexities of Maine's legislative session with our latest podcast episode! 

This episode we break down key bills, budget battles, and the implications of citizens' vetoes. Join Rebecca, Kate, Rebecca & Amanda  for an insightful discussion on what has been happening this session of municipal interest, what you should pay attention to and maybe what you should contact your Legislator about! 

Topics include the state of the budget situation, General Assistance bills (GA), school funding and the EPS formula and housing. 

Transcript

May 25 Podcast

[00:00:00] Welcome everyone to Potholes and Politics, local Maine, issues from A to Z. I am your co-host, Rebecca Graham, here with Rebecca Lambert. Oh, Amanda Campbell and Kate two four. We're having a full team podcast today to try to make up for the fact that we have not had any time whatsoever to do any podcasts throughout this session.

I think last count we had around 900 bills that we were tracking, submitting testimony on, paying attention to, and trying to. Keep up with the hectic, chaotic pace of the legislature. So we thought it would be good to, , do a little breakdown as the legislature is now pretty much largely moved out of committee work and moved into floor battles to talk about a few bills of interest.

Pull [00:01:00] out one bill. Talk about its impact, who supports it, why they support it, who opposes it, why. They oppose it and kind of where the status is on some of the key bills. And also we have our resident guru budget analyst extraordinaire, Kate dufour here with us today to break down what is going on with the state budget if we can.

Right. Yeah. So apparently we're making up titles today. I'm nowhere near a guru on the budget, but . I'm gonna focus on the fact that it seems like the adoption of the Biennial state budget seems to be of concern to MMA and MMA only. , As you may know, , the legislature adopted LD 6 0 9, which is the baseline budget, which basically provides the minimum revenues, , necessary for the functioning of state government.

, That was adopted by the Maine State Legislature on March 20th. Along party lines, meaning that it becomes effective law, , 90 days after the legislature has adjourned. [00:02:00] And so in order to have the revenues necessary to function as July, as of July 1st, the legislature adjourned. , On the 21st, I believe, returned three or four days later in a special session.

And so the timeline or the clock to the 90 days has started ticking. However, , the bill that was just enacted and is making its way slowly to enactment is being challenged via citizens veto, which means if the citizens veto. Petition process is successful, , that timelines the 90 days stops, and we might not have a budget come July 1st, which means at minimum a four month state shutdown.

Um, and so to break it down a little bit, uh, the Citizens Veto is a petition process and the petitioners have until June 18th to collect 67,682 valid signatures. If they [00:03:00] do collect the signatures. Then, the clock stops and we do not have a budget, or this budget does not go into effect until the voters decide at the November election.

So at best, you're looking at a four month shutdown. If it happens, if the signature gatherers. Are not able to collect , the 67,000 signatures, then the budget will go into effect and we can avoid a state shutdown., There's been many questions about plan B. What's the plan B? This possibly couldn't happen.

The state couldn't shut down for four months, maybe six months, and the answer isn't very mm-hmm. Uh, positive, , with respect to a Plan B, unlike federal government, the state of Maine or the Constitution of Maine doesn't provide for continuing resolutions, so there's no authority to continue to operate on the previous year's budget.

And so a new budget has to be enacted every two years by the sitting [00:04:00] legislature. , The other concern is that in, . A presentation to the appropriations committee. The ags office made two observations. The first is whether or not the question was posed whether or not the signature, the petitioners had an obligation to submit the collected signatures.

And the answer is basically yes. , Unless the petitioners want to go back to every, , signatory and say, do you mind if we don't submit these signatures? , Because this is a constitutional provision. The provision,, provides citizens a checks and balance on state government, and it's something that shouldn't be taken lightly.

It's not a game. And so if we engage in this process, then you have to do your due diligence and take it to the end. So. Yes, I guess the, , the petitioners could elect not to submit the signatures, but the ags office is suggesting that they probably have a moral obligation to do so. The second concern is right now the [00:05:00] appropriators are working on another budget, and that's through LD two 10.

I, continue to question whether that two 10 work is the part two budget, which would involve anything over and above the baseline budget. So the baseline budget is what you need to operate, and municipal governments are treated very well in the baseline budget because that's where our money is.

So revenue sharing's in the baseline budget. . K through 12. Education is in the baseline budget homestead, exemption reimbursement, GA reimbursement, that's all in the baseline budget. The part two budget normally looks at over and above. So any new initiatives or , , expanded funding for initiatives.

I'm not sure if that's what LD two 10 is doing. The part two or. , Getting ready to be the plan B. So , if we can't get the adoption of 6 0 9 is two 10, then the budget, the problem is the ags office is advising that, , I guess the trading of the repealing and replacing of the [00:06:00] budget., Bill may be, , seen as, , frustrating or

circumventing the power of the people with respect to the citizen Vito. So this is a long-winded way of saying we don't know. Mm. And June 18th will really tell which direction we're headed in. Yeah. Both ways. There are potential game playing conversations to be had. It's not a game to enact a people's veto.

. One thing I thought was really interesting about listening to that presentation by the AG and the appropriations committee was that, , one of the sitting members stated on the record, you know, the, .

Who proposed this whole citizens petition, had no idea that it was gonna re, that it would potentially result in a, a government shutdown. And I'm thinking, how is that possible that they wouldn't know that when the people who are putting this forward are both sitting and forward legislators? I think there's an element of that that [00:07:00] we haven't seen before.

Right. I, in my tenure with the association, I have never seen. The budget be the subject of a citizen's veto. So it's something that is unknown and I think there's a lot of, , I that can't happen that possibly can't happen. We have to have a plan B, and I think because this has never happened before, there really isn't a plan B and I, I think it's.

You know, it's not, it's not out of the realm of possibility that people would be unfamiliar with it. It caught us, well, me particularly on my heels as well. And so it's because it was introduced that we started digging in to the limitations or what avenues are available to move forward. And it doesn't appear that there are many, and I think that's probably universally, we're all kind of trying to catch up with this type of, uh, provision.

Sure. So we have one majority budget that used parliamentary procedures to frustrate the [00:08:00] will of another party in order to get it over the line. And then we have the other party's response using the people's veto to frustrate the will of the other party, which are basically checks and balances, but the checks and balances are being deployed against each other kind of in a.

, Technical way in order to frustrate the will rather than just having conversations and trying to get the two thirds in agreement to pass things through and work with bodies. Now you have two entrenched zero sum games that are playing out that both involve constitutional provisions that we shouldn't be taking lightly, correct?

I mean, there are consequences for the paths that we choose. And, , to the extent that both parties want to use the tools that are available, that's up to them. But at the end of the day, what really matters is whether or not the residents of the state of Maine who are paying sales income and [00:09:00] property taxes have a level of services that they deserve.

And that's what should be front and center, , when making decisions on budgets. Yeah. So to that end. I'm gonna go to Lambo and ask you to give me a bill breakdown. What bill have you chosen that, , is significant, that maybe is, I don't know, good, bad, ugly? All of the above. I chose to talk about LD three 18 and that is an act regarding school funding and general purpose aid for local schools.

To set the stage a little bit, the education and cultural affairs committee. Has seen an incredible amount of bills that would affect the essential programs and services formula, more commonly known as the EPS formula. And that is the formula that would calculate the amount of state funding that each community receives.

And that's based on a variety of factors like , special education students, low income students, that sort of thing., For [00:10:00] municipalities. Any increase to the school budget can be a hit to the property taxpayers. And this year, the MMA legislative platform recognizes that strain and have proposed several bills, , aimed to relieve that burden on the property taxpayer.

And that includes LD 9 33, which was an act to increase to 100% the state share of funding for special education costs of all school administrative use unit. , So due to the amount of bills affecting the EPS formula and recognizing that making changes to this formula can be really complicated,, the committee chose to kill several of the bills.

, One of which was the PLA MMA platform bill. , Enroll all the proposals into an amendment to LD 318, which was a concept draft that would direct the main education policy Research Institute, also known as Meri and the Department of Education to simulate and forecast how incorporating certain parameters.

, That have been [00:11:00] proposed through these several bills. , And any other idea would impact school funding. The study would report back to the committee in 2026 and is authorized for legislation since, , the results of these reports would bring changes to the school funding. I found it interesting that one of the other proposals that were rolled in, it was similar to MMA platform bill and it would increase special education funding proposed.

, It's right now it's 50% and they proposed to increase it to 55% that had a fiscal note attached of approximately $2.6 million. And although no fiscal note was processed for our platform bill, some quick math showed that our platform bill proposal would've generated an approximate $24 million fiscal note, which is pretty significant, pretty substantial.

So where does that stand right now? , Well, right now it is. , Our bill has rolled into that concept Bill draft that was, , gonna be [00:12:00] directing Meri and the Department of Education to study changes that can be made and bring a report back. There really wasn't anyone opposed to this. Since

everyone that had put a bill through that would affect the EPS formula is being rolled into this one bill. So it'll all be looked at. . And it's worth noting that Mepr has also been doing a deep dive into the EPS formula and that final report hasn't been released, but they've given three briefings to the education committee, updating them on their process so far, but that it is so forthcoming, that study and hopefully, , that deep dive that they're doing will help to inform anything that comes out of LD through into, if it passes the House Senate and ultimately the governor's desk.

So no relief really on the EPS formula or changes. Currently, they're gonna take a deep dive and make an informed presentation next session, right? They're [00:13:00] doing the deep dive right now, and then hopefully with 3 1 8 that will direct them to look at making actual changes to the formula, so then that can be brought back in 2026.

Exciting. Yeah, it is kind of exciting 'cause I, the EPS formula hasn't been changed in like 20 ish years, so, it's time something was done. So everyone recognizes that, , school funding is really expensive and we gotta get a handle on it somehow, but no one knows how to get a handle on it.

, Let's study it. Yeah. And it's becoming contentious within town meetings too, right? Super complicated. Folks don't understand what is required and what is necessary, and that you probably would not want. To have a generation of kids that were only funded at the essential level. Exactly, yes. So naturally there's supplementary that is needed at the local level.

So welcome back, Cambo. Thank you. We're glad to have you here.

What Bill did you [00:14:00] pick? Unsurprisingly I picked a GA bill. What's ga Right? . I chose to go with 9 78, which has become, , like Lambos, the vehicle bill for general assistance to get some changes pushed through, , which aren't bad. One that's really disappointing piece of it, but some of it is pretty good.

, 9 78 started out as a bill to. Increased reimbursement, , in a sort of a tiered format, that it would go from 75 to 90% for the six communities that use the most GA over time. So the 75 to 90 would be spread out between now and,, 2030. , And then, but the 90% for everyone else would go into effect, , on July 1st, 2026, I think.

And so of course, DHHS came out sort of increases to ga. As we all know, the baseline GA funding has not changed in [00:15:00] at least 10 years, if not more. , And it appears as though the department has no intentions of making any changes to that baseline funding. . And as we have said time and again throughout this session, the, , hard choices and hard decisions that the department is having to make, , for funding of all their programs.

So they hated it. They, , opposed every single GA bill that came through with the exception of the one for, , increased access. , Which, I think is gonna go through the Senate today and, , increase access to general assistance. Not to assistance, but to the offices. Oh, okay. , To clarify that access to offices, , for submitting an application, obtaining an application.

, It, when 1732 was past the last session, there was some confusion in the. Semantics of the language. And so that was clarified and they were neither for, nor against that one, but any bill that's been put forward that would increase cost for the GA program, , the department was opposed to including this [00:16:00] one.

, So at their last work session, when they worked six or seven of the GA bills, they dumped. All of them. They voted most of them out, either ought not to pass or on a split on divided reports. And this one was also divided, but it was divided with two ought to pass as amended reports, which was interesting.

So they changed the , they changed the reimbursement recognizing that the fiscal cost for those six communities alone, that take the most, , that use the most. GA would be just fiscally impossible. And so instead, , they decided to switch it to 75% reimbursement starting on July 1st, 2025, and then made moving up to 80% reimbursement starting on July 1st, 2027.

, That was approved unanimously by the HHS committee. And then they also, , changed the . Housing assistance to, , 12 months [00:17:00] in a 36 month period, which was also agreed to unanimously by the committee. And that consists of the first, first ought to passes amended report. The second one is the same language, but also adds in, an expansion of the.

Limitations on exceeding the maximum level of assistance for housing Right now that's limited just to, if the housing is temporary in a hotel or a motel and this, , amendment would expand that to all housing, all emergency housing, , you couldn't go over the maximum, , for more than 30 days in a 12 month period regarding all of that emergency housing.

Mm-hmm. , And so that makes up the second. Ought to pass as amended, which was the minority report. So the biggest disappointment about the whole thing, however, is that they killed LD 6 37, which was a resolve, , put forward by Representative Henderson to sort of get the database. Moving, which was something that was part of [00:18:00] mm.

A's platform bill 1732 last session. , And that part we were actually able to get over the finish line and now the finish line is like a brick wall, unfortunately. So, . DHHS had put out an RFP for the, for the database, recognizing that it was an issue that for the GA administrators who can't cross reference, if an applicant has come from another community or has received, , assistance from another community, or if they were denied assistance or, or there's no way really for, , communities to cross-reference that information at this time.

And so DHHS recognized that and. Went through this whole process, put in the RFP, , and what they have reported is that the bids that came back ranged between $670,000 and 3.7 million for this database program. Wow. Which I don't quite understand. There is a current system being used by some of the communities in Southern [00:19:00] Maine that was developed by.

A GA administrator. So I'm not sure if that person submitted a bid to, to try and make that program work for everybody or not. But, , long story short, part of both of those, , majority and Minority Amendments to 9 78, strike and repeal all of the language in GA statute regarding the database. Wow. Yeah, so,

, If the reimbursement goes through up to 75%, at least it's something, it's not much, but it's something. But the database really, it's probably like functionally 70%. Right, right. Because of the increased cost of everything else. And because the maximum levels are so low, people and admin is not able to be included.

Correct. Yeah. Correct. So I mean, it's sort of a win, but not really. And the database really is, is a, is a blow, . Administrators, need that tool. And this is, . Very disappointed. Yeah. I'm [00:20:00] gonna be cynical and, and say that a lot of the legislation that has come through this year has been performative.

It has been about speaking to some sort of moral panic, but functionally doing nothing. So I took a negative bill. Sorry, Kate. , It's not a platform bill, but it kind of forms,, an approach that I saw being, , widespread, which were bills that were calling out high ideals that basically do nothing except shove more work down on municipal government and then allow them to claim that they've done something for housing and to create housing.

So, , the bill that I chose. Is LD 1829, which was originally named an act to build housing for Maine families and attract workers to Maine businesses by amending the laws governing municipal land use decisions. , It was a bill that was introduced by Speaker fto. It has a very grand title and [00:21:00] functionally did a lot of things that even the judiciary actually showed up and said.

. No, there's a separation of powers here. One was, , to create basically an appeals board, a statewide appeals board that would be judicial and finalizing in its decisions and circumvent, , the ability for someone to actually access super court. Around that, , judiciary was like, , separation of powers.

Nope, you can't do that. , So that was removed from the amended version. , But basically it goes back and amends all of the provisions of statute pertaining to,, accessory dwelling units that were just enacted because evidently. The language was incorrect around that, but it was such a good bill. Um, yeah.

This one goes even further, so it adds a provision in Title 25 that would preempt the ability for the 21 communities that have adopted sprinkler ordinances. To apply those in an A DU situation unless there were three or more units.

So it basically preempts local sprinkle [00:22:00] ordinances. It attempted to amend the main condominium act, but that was also struck out of the amended version. It expands the definition of a DU to include a unit attached or detached from a multi-unit structure. Currently, the law reads single family dwelling unit.

So if you had a three. Unit apartment building, you can add additional units to that that's now included. It also amends the law on the rate of growth ordinances and would prohibit rate of growth ordinances, and limits resident that limit residential development and designated growth areas, , that are served by public water sewer, which is this.

Completely disconnected concept that just because you have water and sewer lines means that you have system capacity to actually take on that. And as we heard, what, three years ago now, it seems like Lambo up in,, Sette, Sette that they have a very [00:23:00] complex system to keep. The water quality on Long Lake that serves very few people and zero capacity to even handle what's there because it has so many pumps and components along the way to try to get it to French fill that, , it, it simply because it exists does not mean that it can.

Handle more. , And with another bill that they had introduced to preempt impact fees, it'll be impossible for communities to pass that onto development as well. , It requires municipalities to allow affordable housing developments to exceed height restrictions by no less than 14 feet. So height restrictions on buildings are really interconnected with fire apparatus and the availability of fire apparatus, which is particularly important if you're going to not allow sprinkler systems as well.

. That you don't need a tower truck to be able to get folks out of that. So now you, if it's an affordable housing unit, then you [00:24:00] are supposed to allow an extra, an extra hole, 14 feet. , It requires municipality to allow three dwelling units per lot, and four, if it's in a designated growth area.

Requires municipality to allow an owner to be able to sell or transfer those resulting units separately. So, um, multiple, basically, subdivision law preempt subdivision law, requires municipality to allow and exempt the first two dwelling units from density requirements or calculations related to lot area.

Um, requires the municipality to set a requirement per lot area where there are three or more dwellings, as long as the lot area requirement is the same for the subsequent unit. It prevents municipality and designated growth area or areas that are served by public water and sewer from requiring more than 5,000 square feet of lot area or dwelling unit, or more than 15,000 square feet for a minimum lot size.

Again, problematic. , [00:25:00] One of the definitions of public sewer is a centralized system that serves several units that has been designed by an engineer. AKA septic system, which requires 20,000 square feet in statute now. But anyway, , prevents a municipality or any residential area from requiring more than 50 feet of road frontage per lot, except on arterial or collector roads.

Prevents a municipality in any residential area from requiring, , front road or side setback area greater than 10 feet for a structure. So good luck getting your truck in there. Your fire truck exempts. Planning board approval for four or fewer dwelling units within a structure requires municipality to use objective approval standards without discretional review.

For review. Approval of four or fewer. Units within a structure requires two additional ADUs to be allowed for a total of four dwelling units per lot. If there are fewer than four existing [00:26:00] units, AKA, if it's a single family duplex or triplex, or a whole bunch of ADUs requires municipality to exempt from density requirements only the first a DU on the lot and requires municipality to, , exempt any ADUs from any parking.

Mm-hmm. Requirements. That's a whole bunch of other things. , Prevents municipality from preventing an owner from selling or transferring separately, a dwelling unit on the owner's lot. A legal subdivision requires municipal reviewing authorities to attend training and land use planning. So I guess our, our, , training department might have an uptick in those, those folks, which is now currently voluntary.

I'm sure municipalities will greatly appreciate that. And subdivision. Basically a redefined subdivision from a division of law or structure into three parcels or units into a division of five parcels or units. There's some question as to whether or not that is in or out because there are two [00:27:00] different provisions of subdivision law.

There's municipal subdivision law, and then there's actual subdivision law. , And the conversation around that because none of the amended language has actually been posted anywhere so that the public could actually see this. None of that amended language has been available. , It's just. Been spoken to briefly when folks are done caucusing on this, deciding on their provisions, and then coming back on Mike.

So last night, this bill, . Was voted out unanimously by the housing committee after they caucused for, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes and worked out some language that they felt as though might lessen the burden on municipal government. So it's, it's unclear as to which. Section of the pro, the subdivision standards are still in.

But nonetheless, there are many communities that adopted these A DU ordinances to allow them without requiring the extra lot coverage specifically to say if you're gonna provide housing. So they required you [00:28:00] to it to be subservient to the primary use, which is what an accessory. Dwelling unit is supposed to be, it's not supposed to be a duplex that is paired.

It is an accessory to the primary use and, , required that it either be rented out for a longer period of time so it didn't turn into a short term rental or required owner occupancy of the primary dwelling unit or the A DU so that you could shift it around to make sure that it was really about.

Providing housing and not. Short term rentals, particularly in coastal communities that are struggling with that. The complaint of from the sponsor was that that was causing the lack of a DU uptick in a lot of communities, when in fact, it was really about the financing products. So there aren't any bank financing products other than taking an equity line of credit, or you can't really get a construction loan for that because they don't count the long-term [00:29:00] rental as income.

But if it were a short-term rental. They would count that as income and therefore, or, or if you could break it out in a condo, that would allow them, uh, the banks to provide loan products to folks, uh, in a more regular way. So it, it's just nauseating that we could probably attack the bank financing product thing.

But instead, what has been floated is to attack the local home rule constitutional provisions instead of going after the financiers. Who created the housing situation. But, but with all of those requires and preventions, surely this is a mandate. Oh, it's definitely a mandate. And they spent a lot of time trying to diminish that, saying, well, you just adopted ordinances, so it shouldn't be too much to update ordinances, because the process is somehow different because you don't need a public hearing and you don't need to actually make it as part of the warrant and the annual town meeting.[00:30:00] 

You don't have to publish it in a paper, you don't have to have a special town meeting if it falls out of sync with that or meet the deadlines that they are putting in, which are July 1st, 2027 and July 1st, 2026. Depending upon whether or not you're a council town or a, or a town meeting town,, I just find that.

So extremely disconnected from reality. Let's just say that. , Because that might not be how they operate, but that's the reality of municipal government. You can't do things in a caucus. You can't do things offline. You have to do them publicly, and you have to involve the public in a process, and you have to publish all your stuff so that people know what it is.

So that they can read it and make decisions about whether or not they wanna vote for it. Those provisions don't apply in this particular case or in several cases as we've seen through the legislature this year. , But it does apply to the municipal level, so we do have to publish that language, and we do, we can't just [00:31:00] amend and update it without actually providing our citizens the ability to weigh in on that.

What happens if the community amends their ordinance as. Required and the voters don't approve it? Not much. I mean, I, I think that what you could say is that it would be up to those that wanted to develop, to challenge that, but I don't think that you're going, you're not gonna see communities violate the will of their voters.

They're going to do the work. They're going to expend the funds that require them to do that work. The legislature is either gonna. Override their obligation to do that with a two thirds majority vote. Or they're gonna provide, as they did the last time, very underwhelming funding for that. , And make communities jump through hoops in order to get it, despite the fact that the Constitution says they're responsible for 90% of that.

And that seems to be the way that they're pivoting on this. [00:32:00] I think this one is a even bigger than LD 2003 with the height restrictions and the height requirements, as well as the preemption on me on sprinkler standards, because that's a significant cost to public safety. Services that, , wasn't touched with LD 2003 and is now in there and a tower truck.

A new tower truck is 1.3 million. Takes about five years to get. You can get a used one for around 800,000, but I'm not sure that my community wants to spend $800,000 on that when we have a few roads that we need to pave and, the school septic system is failing just so that. Somebody who doesn't live here year round can add an A DU and rent it out as a short term rental.

So that's why we deliberately took our approach to that. But

Most of the bills that came through housing had a very similar bend. They, they spoke to the moral panic of a lack of housing, a lack of affordable housing, and the market forces [00:33:00] behind that as though municipalities held the key to all of that, all the while you're hearing about all these projects all over the state, there are thousands of units that are, of stuff that are being added because municipalities have identified areas within their communities.

That's acceptable to that. And instead, while they're doing all this work, they're now gonna come back and do more work to adopt more ordinances in the name of quote housing that produces nothing except work for municipal government taxpayer expense at the property tax payer level. And , yeah, but it makes you feel good

. There we are Then there we are. Then this will be my next to the last maybe podcast with you guys. Yeah, share. Share that devastating news with our listeners. I'm sure it's not devastating.

Well, it's to us. Oh it is. I'm [00:34:00] going to the dark side. I'm going to the state., Gonna be director of policy, FOA and Legislative affairs for main state Police. There we are. This, we are. Then you can't beat 'em. Might as well join them.

 You cut that out too. , Yeah, so I'm bummed to be leaving and I have mixed feelings about it. I love you guys so much and I love working in this team. I love the creativity. That we've been able to foster. And I know that that will continue. And I'm still so municipal and I'm going to be municipal efficient still, so, so it's still be great.

We'll have to have you as a guest. Yes, yes. I'd be happy to in both capacities. I'd be happy to be a guest. . , It'll be an interesting focus and it'll be a narrowing of the platform. So maybe rather than 900 bills, maybe we'll get maybe 10, 15. I don't know. We'll find out. [00:35:00] I have not looked at the scope of what they had to respond to this past year, but at least there'll be one policy area, , extremely challenging one, but I think that.

You'll just have more time to travel. Yeah, I'll have less vacation time 'cause then I'll be a newbie. Well, you know, you don't have to go, haven't filled your position yet.

. We will, we will wait until we leave and see if Kate locks the door

so Lambo, cambo and uh, Rambo will now be just Lambo Cambo. And, and a weirdo.

Please leave that in

I'll take [00:36:00] weirdo.

 Okay. Well there we are then. I love you guys. And we love you. Welcome back, Cambo. Thank you. It's nice to see you, please. Yeah. You're back when all the fun is over and now just the rage remains. Okay. I can rage with the machine.

All right. All right, we'll see you next time. Hi. Lambo out. Kimbo out. Weirdo out, Rambo out.