Conflict of Interest? More Like 'Conflict of Interest: Deluxe Edition' for IRS Nominee

America, a nation built on the foundational principles of 'who you know,' 'what you owe,' and 'can you get away with it,' has once again demonstrated its unwavering commitment to these hallowed traditions. James R. Gadwood, Esq., recently tapped by the Executive Branch to helm the legal department of the Internal Revenue Service, appears to be an ideal candidate, boasting an impressive resume forged at Miller & Chevalier. Coincidentally, or perhaps by divine (read: strategic) intervention, his esteemed firm has also generously provided legal counsel to the Executive Branch’s principal, specifically on, one presumes, matters pertaining to the fiscal unpleasantness known as 'taxation.' Critics, those perpetual purveyors of inconvenient facts and transparent motives, have lodged predictable complaints about 'conflicts of interest.' They contend that perhaps, just perhaps, a gentleman whose firm robustly defends a President against tax scrutiny might not be the most objectively positioned individual to then oversee the very agency tasked with scrutinizing <i>everyone else's</i> taxes. Such quaint notions, harkening back to an era of separation of powers and ethical firewalls, fail to appreciate the streamlined efficiency of modern governance. Why hire an outsider when you can simply nominate an 'insider' already well-versed in the *nuances* of the principal's financial philosophy? It's not a conflict; it's a synergistic optimizing of national resources.