马斯克发布雠校政府操办T先生系

马斯克 拉玛斯瓦米

2024年11月20日《华尔街日报》

咱们的国度建筑在一个基本理念之上：由咱们选出的东谈主（the people we elect）来经管政府。关联词，好意思国现在的运作姿色如故不再如斯。大多数功令，并非国和会过的法律，而是由未经选举的官僚颁布的“划定和法则”——每年颁布的法则更仆难尽。大多数政府规则有筹划妥协放裁量支拨，并非由民选总统或其任命的政事官员作念出，而是由政府机构内数以百万计的未经选举、未被任命的公事员决定，这些东谈主自以为不错凭借公事员保护机制而免于被裁。

这种意志是反民主的，而况与开国者的愿景以火去蛾中。它给征税东谈主带来了高大的顺利和迤逦资本。值得红运的是，咱们赢得了一次历史性的契机来科罚这个问题。11月5日，选民们以压倒性多数选出了特朗普，并赋予其进行全面变革的劳动，他们应当享有这一罢了。

特朗普总统已邀请咱们二东谈主指令一个新耕作的“政府成果部”（简称DOGE），以精简联邦政府的界限。根深蒂固且束缚膨大的官僚体系对咱们的共和国的生涯组成了胁迫，政事家们对此已纵欲太久。这便是为什么咱们要以不同的姿色来行事。

咱们是企业家，不是政客。咱们将之外部志愿者的身份——而非联邦官员或雇员——从事服务。与政府委员会或盘问机构不同，咱们不会仅仅撰写敷陈或剪彩，咱们将着实削减资本。

咱们正在协助特朗普过渡团队，识别并招聘一支精干的由小政府主义者（small-government crusaders）组成的团队，其中包括一些好意思国最隆起的手艺和法律东谈主才。这个团队将在新政府中与白宫经管和预算办公室细密融合。咱们二东谈主将在每一个圭表上为政府成果部提供盘问，以股东三大类雠校：

放手过度监管，减少行政开支，检朴资本。

咱们将聚焦通过基于现存立法的行政纪律股东雠校，而不是通过制定新法律的姿色。咱们雠校的带领想想是好意思国宪法，而况至极关心最高法院在拜登总统任期内作念出的两项要害裁决。

在西弗吉尼亚州诉环保署案（West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency，2022）中，最高法院裁定，除非国会明确授权，政府机构不可制定波及要紧经济或战术问题的法则。在Loper Bright诉Raimondo一案（2024）中，最高法院推翻了“雪佛龙原则”，裁定联邦法院不再对子邦机构解说法律或其本身制定例则的权柄加以优容。详尽来看，这些案件标明，面前无边的联邦法则超出了国会凭证法律赋予的权限。

DOGE将与政府机构的法律群众联袂融合T先生系，借助先进手艺，依据这些判决对政府机构颁布的联邦法则进行审查。DOGE将把这一法则清单提交给特朗普总统，他不错通过行政敕令立即暂停这些法则的实施，并运转审查和放手圭表。这将使个东谈主和企业从未经国和会过的犯警法则下解放出来，进而刺激好意思国经济。

当总统放手数以千计的此类法则，品评者可能会责怪其滥用行政权柄。事实上，这恰正是对行政权柄滥用——即未经国会授权便出台数以千计的行政法则——的矫正。总统尊重国会的立法权，而不是尊重隐身于联邦机构内的官僚。愚弄行政敕令增多繁复的新划定，以替代立法，是一种违宪步履。不外，为了遵命最高法院最近的裁决，使用行政敕令来放手那些诞妄地绕过国会的法则矩是正当的、必要的。而况，在这些法则被十足放手之后，异日的总统不可粗浅地按下开关按钮重新激活它们，而是必须条目国会重新通过。

大幅削减联邦法则为在联邦官僚体系中进行大界限裁人提供了合理的逻辑。DOGE操办与各机构中的受任命者融合，识别每个机构为执行其宪法允许和法定授权的职能所需的最低职工数。联邦雇员的缩小东谈主数至少应该与联邦法则的放手数目成比例：法则越少，认着实施法则的雇员就越少，而况，一朝行政机构的权限得到顺应的罢了，该机构制定的法则就会越少。被裁的职工理当得到尊重，DOGE的贪图是提供相应复旧，匡助他们过渡到私营部门。总统不错愚弄现存法律，为他们提供提前退休的激发纪律，并提供自觉辞职抵偿，以匡助他们优雅地离开。传统不雅念以为，法定的公事员保护纪律拦阻总统乃至总统任命的政事东谈主员解任联邦雇员。这些保护纪律的意见是保护职工免受政事报复。但该法案允许进行不针对具体职工的裁人。该法案还赋予总统“制定竞争性服务经管划定”的权柄，这一权柄是世俗的。以往的总统曾通过行政敕令修改公事员划定，最高法院在Franklin诉Massachusetts（1992年）和Collins诉Yellen（2021年）诸案中裁定，他们在修改时并不受《行政圭表法》的罢了。凭借这一权柄，特朗普不错实施任何数目的“竞争性服务经管划定”，以贬抑行政机构的膨大，从大界限裁人到将联邦机构迁出华盛顿地区。条目联邦雇员一周五天在办公室劳动，将会导致一波自觉辞职潮，咱们对此暗意接待：要是联邦雇员不肯到岗劳动，试图享受疫情时间居家办公的特权，好意思国征税东谈主隔断向其支付薪水。

终末，咱们的重心是为征税东谈主检朴资本。有些怀疑论者质疑DOGE仅通过行政敕令约略削减若干联邦开支。他们提到1974年的《预算限定法》，该法案舛误总统罢手国会授权的支拨。特朗普曾建议该法案违宪，咱们以为面前的最高法院可能会复旧他的不雅点。但即便不依赖这极少，DOGE也将通过对准每年越过5000亿好意思元的未经国会授权或未以国会预期姿色使用的联邦开支，来匡助收尾联邦政府的过度开支。这些开支包括每年用于群众播送公司的5.35亿好意思元、用于给海外组织拨款的15亿好意思元，以及用于资助像操办生养组织等越过团体的近3亿好意思元。

联邦政府的采购经由雷同存在严重问题。好多联邦条约如故多年莫得经过审查。在暂时中止支付时间进行大界限审计将会带来显耀的检朴。最近，五角大楼相连第七次未能通过财务审计，这标明该机构的指令层险些不知谈其每年越过8000亿好意思元的预算是何如被虚耗的。品评者宣称，咱们无法在不削减像医疗保障（Medicare）和医疗援手（Medicaid）等福利姿色的情况下有用地缩减联邦赤字，这些姿色需要由国会进行缩减。关联词，这种说法转机了对糜费、诓骗和滥用问题的关心，这些问题是险些系数征税东谈主齐但愿已矣的，而DOGE旨在通过识别精确的行政步履，顺利给征税东谈主检朴资本。

凭借决定性的选举授权和在最高法院的6:3保守派多数，DOGE赢得了一次历史性契机，以完结联邦政府的结构性精简。咱们如故作念好了准备，管待来自华盛顿根深蒂固的利益集团的浓烈反击。咱们瞻望将会奏凯。现在是时分接管漂浮步履了。

DOGE的首要贪图是在2026年7月4日（咱们为姿色设定的截止日历）捣毁本身存在的必要性。在好意思国开国250周年之际，莫得比为咱们国度拜托一个让开国者自大的联邦政府更好的诞辰礼物了。

Our country is built on the basic idea that the people we elect to run the government are the ones we elect. But that's not the case in America today. Most of the provisions of the law are not laws enacted by Congress， but "rules and regulations" enacted by unelected bureaucrats... there are tens of thousands of rules and regulations every year. Most of the government's law enforcement decisions and discretionary spending are made not by the elected president or even his politically appointed officials but by the millions of unelected， unappointed civil servants in government agencies who believe they will not be fired because of the protections of the civil service.

This approach is anti-democratic and runs counter to the vision of the Founding Fathers. It imposes significant direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully， we have a historic opportunity to address this. On November 5， voters decisively elected Trump and authorized him to make sweeping changes that they (taxpayers) deserve.

President Trump asked the two of us to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency， DOGE- Also known as the Office of Government Efficiency to reduce the size of the federal government. The entrenched， ballooning bureaucracy poses an existential threat to our republic， and politicians have tolerated it for a long time. That's why we're taking a different approach. We're entrepreneurs， not politicians. We are outside volunteers， not federal officials or employees. Unlike government committees or advisory committees， we don't just write reports or cut ribbons. We're going to cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team in identifying and hiring a lean team of small government reform fighters， including some of the nation's brightest technical and legal talent. The team will work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget in the new administration. The two of us will advise the Office of Government Efficiency at every step to implement three broad categories of reform: deregulation， administrative reduction， and cost savings. We will place particular emphasis on promoting reform through executive action based on existing legislation rather than through the enactment of new laws. The polar star of our reform will be the Constitution of the United States， focusing on two important Supreme Court decisions during his tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)， the justices held that agencies cannot enforce regulations that involve significant economic or policy issues unless Congress expressly authorizes them. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024)， the Court overturned the Chevron principle， holding that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies' interpretation of the law or to their own rulemaking. Together， these cases demonstrate that a large number of existing federal regulations go beyond the authority given by Congress by law.

The Office of Government Efficiency will work with legal experts in government agencies to apply these rulings to federal regulations created by those agencies， with the help of advanced technology. The Office of Government Efficiency will present the list of regulations to President Donald Trump， who can immediately suspend their implementation through executive action and initiate a review and repeal process. This would free individuals and businesses from illegal regulations that Congress never passed， and stimulate the American economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations， critics accuse the executive of overstepping his authority. In fact， this is correcting executive overreach， i.e. the thousands of regulations enacted through executive orders that were never authorized by Congress. The president should obey Congress when legislating， not bureaucrats within federal agencies. Using executive orders to add cumbersome new rules to replace legislation is a violation of the Constitution， but using executive orders to repeal statutes that wrongly circumvent Congress is legal and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's recent authorization. And， after these regulations have been fully repealed， future presidents cannot simply press the switch to restore them but will have to ask Congress to do so.

The drastic cuts in federal regulations provide a reasonable industry logic for mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy. The Office of Government Efficiency intends to work with agencies' in-house appointees to determine the minimum number of employees required for an agency to perform constitutionally permitted and statutory functions. The number of federal employees cut should be at least proportional to the number of federal statutes repealed: Not only will fewer employees be needed to enforce fewer statutes， but the agency will create fewer of them once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose jobs have been eliminated deserve to be treated with respect， and the Government Efficiency Office aims to help them transition into the private sector. The president could use existing laws to encourage them to retire early and pay voluntary severance payments to facilitate their dignified departure.

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil service protections prevent the president and even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the regulations allow for "laying off" that does not target specific employees. The statute further authorizes the president to "develop rules governing competitive services." This power is very broad. Previous presidents have used this power to amend civil service rules by executive order， and the Supreme Court ruled in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they were not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act when they did so. With this authority， President Trump could curb the excesses of the executive branch by implementing a variety of "rules governing competitive services，" from mass firings to relocating federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to work in the office five days a week will lead to a wave of voluntary departures， which we welcome: if federal employees don't want to work， American taxpayers shouldn't pay them the privilege of staying home in the age of the coronavirus.

Finally， we are committed to cost savings for the taxpayer. Skeptics question how much federal spending the Office of Government Efficiency can control with administrative means alone. They point out that the Appropriations Control Act of 1974 prevents the president from halting spending authorized by Congress. President Trump has previously said the bill is unconstitutional， and we believe the current Supreme Court is likely to uphold his view on this issue. But even without relying on this view， the Office of Government Efficiency will help end federal overspending by targeting more than $500 billion a year in federal spending that Congress did not authorize or used in ways that Congress never intended. From $535 million a year for public broadcasters and $1.5 billion in grants to international organizations， to nearly $300 million for progressive groups such as family planning.

The federal government's procurement process is also deeply flawed. Many federal contracts have gone unreviewed for years. Large-scale audits during the suspension of payments could result in significant financial savings. The Pentagon recently failed an audit for the seventh time in a row， suggesting that the agency's leadership knows almost nothing about how its more than $800 billion annual budget is spent. Critics claim that we can't effectively and meaningfully close the federal deficit without targeting entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that Congress needs to shrink. However， this diverts attention from waste， fraud and abuse， which almost all taxpayers want to end， and the Office of Government Efficiency aims to save taxpayers immediately by identifying precise administrative measures to address them.

With a decisive electoral mandate and the Supreme Court's 6: 3 conservative majority， the Office of Government Efficiency has a historic opportunity to make structural cuts to the federal government. We are ready to deal with a shock from entrenched interests in Washington. We look forward to winning. Now is the time for decisive action. Our primary goal for the Office of Government Efficiency is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4， 2026— the deadline we set for the project. On the 250th anniversary of our founding， there is no better birthday present than building a federal government that our founding fathers are proud of.

xiang shuai

关心微博，获取更多香帅时评

更多感悟T先生系，更多随同

• 政府
• T先生系
• 马斯
• 操办
• 克雠