en if she went to jail, you're not going to see the files. So there's no path that would produce the files. And I think Luna, and by the way I give her credit as well as Massie, it was a pretty good try. But as soon as they included that you can redact things for national security or to protect the victims, as soon as that was part of it, there was no chance you would see them. You're just going to get the trickle, trickle, trickle.

Well, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, I guess he predicted yesterday that they would get enough votes, I think this would be in January, to extend the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, the ACA. Now why that's important is if these subsidies run out, then millions of Americans will be priced out of the health care market. That would be bad. And Republicans can't seem to agree on extending it because that would look like wasting more money to them. And Democrats of course insist on it.

So the question is, Scott, if you're so good at persuasion, how do you get past the fact that there's going to be a total health care apocalypse unless Republicans do what Republicans don't ever do, which is sign up to spend way more money than they think they should be spending. It's not something that the Republicans are going to say, you know, well, why not extend it three years because they're talking about a three-year extension.

So I would like to offer the following path. Republicans probably could agree, or enough of them could, that you don't have to get all of them. You just have to get enough to have a majority with the Democrats. But I believe you could convince some Republicans to temporarily, maybe not three years, not three years necessarily, but temporarily extend it, but they'd have to get something in return.

Now what could Republicans ask for in return for this thing they definitely don't want to do, which is extend it? What would they ask for that would make sense that you would say oh well if you got that I'm okay with it. And I don't know what the answer is but let me just throw out an idea. Okay, so the suggestion would be this. That Republicans could demand that if they vote to extend the ACA they would have to get in return some kind of guaranteed audit and fraud reduction system that is stronger than whatever is happening now.

Now what I've learned recently is apparently almost all big expenses in the government do in fact come paired with a requirement to audit. Did you know that? So auditing is actually built into a lot of government processes, but it doesn't work. And I think the reason it doesn't work is that the people in charge of spending the money are the same people in charge of the audit. So of course it doesn't work. If the auditors are part of the same political party as the people who are stealing the money, they're just going to be in on it. So apparently what happens in the real world, in the real world, there'll be a requirement to audit and they just don't do it. Or if they do do it and they get a bad result, they don't do anything about it. Nobody goes to jail.

So when I say that the Republicans could demand some kind of audit control, I mean a different form from whatever we're doing now that doesn't work. A different form might include some better approach to getting, let's say, Republican auditors. Suppose Republicans said if you allow Republican majority but not 100%, Republican majority control over auditing this domain, we will approve the expense because there's so much fraud and waste and the only way anybody's even going to mention it or even look for it is if they're on a competing political party.

So imagine you're the Democrats and the Republicans offer this. We will extend. We will vote to extend if you vote that we're going to create auditing entities that are by a majority, could be three out of five people but majority Republican. If you let us pick the auditing team, we will