To what extent is Maine committed to extract from its movers and shakers to support a multitude of dependent takers? What would an independent, DOGE-like investigation reveal about our state’s budgetary prudence? Why wouldn’t a responsible Governor, treasurer and party leaders welcome such extra oversight? Doesn’t our state still retain the qualities of common sense and Yankee practicality demanded of a largely rural, cold-climate population? Shouldn’t we be proud to expose prudent management of governing responsibilities and sensitivity to the public at large? Wouldn’t both political parties benefit from a clean bill of health and avoiding the devastating revelations of impropriety now surfacing at the federal level? At a time when Washington is looking to downsize by delegating more responsibility to the state level, why shouldn’t Mainers be among the leaders in such a movement? Must the federal administration effectively serve as a money-launderer to maintain some equilibrium in the states’ ability to be self-supporting in a context of widely differing geography, population, climate and resources? Can the states remain ‘United’ if left more balkanized and self-dependent? Is there a way to reconcile the view from top-level governance with the realities of the electoral base? Phil Osifer