Why does the decision to avoid a government shutdown seem offensive to so many members of Congress? Could it be a desire to forestall intensive investigation and revelation of serious lack of judgment and oversight in determining specific applications of taxpayer contributions to the federal budget? Evidence already uncovered confirms egregious conduct in obfuscating pass-through administrative entities and ultimate recipient benefactors, discrediting a process that seems to have become routine over multiple administrations. Too many politicians and family members have been exposed as being “on the take”, seriously undercutting public confidence in the ethical conduct of their representatives. The stopgap continuing resolution passed last week enables further uninterrupted inquiry into such official malfeasance, likely with political consequences for the perpetrators, some of whom will prove to be delegated bureaucratic staff agents. Conclusive investigation of this subversive practice will prove to be a welcome accomplishment of the new federal administration as cover-up is replaced by transparency. Ritual tribal darkness protection is out, hopefully replaced by unfiltered daylight exposure. The public is tired of stalling tactics to shield certain members who presumably pursued government service in the public interest. Would the conduct now being exposed be minimized by instituting age or term limits on federal officeholders? Is that something on which both parties might actually agree? Phil Osifer