马斯克改良政府讨论全文(中英文)

马斯克发布改良政府讨论

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）来管制政府。谋划词，好意思国现在的运作神情仍是不再如斯。大多数功令，并非国领路过的法律，而是由未经选举的官僚颁布的“章程和纪律”——每年颁布的纪律汗牛充栋。大多数政府法则决议妥协脱裁量支拨，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，并且与开国者的愿景以火去蛾中。它给征税东谈主带来了纷乱的径直和蜿蜒资本。值得运道的是，咱们取得了一次历史性的契机来处分这个问题。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职业，他们应当享有这一遣散。

特朗普总统已邀请咱们二东谈主调换一个新培育的“政府成果部”（简称DOGE），以精简联邦政府的范围。根深蒂固且束缚延长的官僚体系对咱们的共和国的糊口组成了要挟，政事家们对此已放纵太久。这等于为什么咱们要以不同的神情来行事。

咱们是企业家，不是政客。咱们将除外部志愿者的身份——而非联邦官员或雇员——从事服务。与政府委员会或琢磨机构不同，咱们不会仅仅撰写论述或剪彩，咱们将真的削减资本。

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了得的工夫和法律东谈主才。这个团队将在新政府中与白宫管制和预算办公室良好谐和。咱们二东谈主将在每一个设施上为政府成果部提供琢磨，以股东三大类改良：

放置过度监管，减少行政开支，从简资本。

咱们将聚焦通过基于现存立法的行政要领股东改良，而不是通过制定新法律的神情。咱们改良的率领想想是好意思国宪法，并且尽头温煦最高法院在拜登总统任期内作念出的两项关节裁决。

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，政府机构不行制定波及首要经济或战略问题的纪律。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线路法律或其自己制定例则的职权加以宽厚。详细来看，这些案件标明，现时无数的联邦纪律超出了国会笔据法律赋予的权限。

DOGE将与政府机构的法律内行联袂谐和，借助先进工夫，依据这些判决对政府机构颁布的联邦纪律进行审查。DOGE将把这一纪律清单提交给特朗普总统，他不错通过行政高歌立即暂停这些纪律的推行，并运行审查和放置程序。这将使个东谈主和企业从未经国领路过的违警纪律下解放出来，进而刺激好意思国经济。

当总统放置数以千计的此类纪律，品评者可能会责难其滥用行政职权。事实上，这恰正是对行政职权滥用——即未经国会授权便出台数以千计的行政纪律——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。欺骗行政高歌增多繁复的新章程，以替代立法，是一种违宪当作。不外，为了撤职最高法院最近的裁决，使用行政高歌来根除那些造作地绕过国会的法章程是正当的、必要的。并且，在这些纪律被齐全放置之后，往时的总统不行疏忽地按下开关按钮从头激活它们，而是必须条目国会从头通过。

大幅削减联邦纪律为在联邦官僚体系中进行大范围裁人提供了合理的逻辑。DOGE讨论与各机构中的受任命者谐和，识别每个机构为推行其宪法允许和法定授权的职能所需的最低职工数。联邦雇员的镌汰东谈主数至少应该与联邦纪律的放置数目成比例：纪律越少，谨慎推行纪律的雇员就越少，并且，一朝行政机构的权限得到顺应的限制，该机构制定的纪律就会越少。被裁的职工理当得到尊重，DOGE的盘算是提供相应扶植，匡助他们过渡到私营部门。总统不错欺骗现存法律，为他们提供提前退休的引发要领，并提供自觉下野抵偿，以匡助他们优雅地离开。

传统不雅念以为，法定的公事员保护要领不容总统乃至总统任命的政事东谈主员革职联邦雇员。这些保护要领的看法是保护职工免受政事攻击。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“制定竞争性服务管制章程”的职权，这一职权是平素的。以往的总统曾通过行政高歌修改公事员章程，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《行政程序法》的限制。凭借这一职权，特朗普不错实施任何数目的“竞争性服务管制章程”，以扼制行政机构的延长，从大范围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职业，将会导致一波自觉下野潮，咱们对此暗意接待：若是联邦雇员不肯到岗职业，试图享受疫情时期居家办公的特权，好意思国征税东谈主阻隔向其支付薪水。

终末，咱们的要点是为征税东谈主从简资本。有些怀疑论者质疑DOGE仅通过行政高歌大要削减几许联邦开支。他们提到1974年的《预算抑止法》，该法案进击总统罢手国会授权的支拨。特朗普曾淡薄该法案违宪，咱们以为现时的最高法院可能会扶植他的不雅点。但即便不依赖这少量，DOGE也将通过对准每年杰出5000亿好意思元的未经国会授权或未以国会预期神情使用的联邦开支，来匡助收尾联邦政府的过度开支。这些开支包括每年用于寰宇播送公司的5.35亿好意思元、用于给海外组织拨款的15亿好意思元，以及用于资助像经餬口育组织等高出团体的近3亿好意思元。

联邦政府的采购历程雷同存在严重问题。好多联邦条约仍是多年莫得经过审查。在暂时中止支付时期进行大范围审计将会带来显耀的从简。最近，五角大楼齐集第七次未能通过财务审计，这标明该机构的调换层险些不知谈其每年杰出8000亿好意思元的预算是若何被徒然的。品评者宣称，咱们无法在不削减像医疗保障（Medicare）和医疗补助（Medicaid）等福利名看法情况下有用地缩减联邦赤字，这些名目需要由国会进行缩减。谋划词，这种说法转机了对浪掷、诈骗和滥用问题的温煦，这些问题是险些整个征税东谈主齐但愿闭幕的，而DOGE旨在通过识别精确的行政当作，径直给征税东谈主从简资本。

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取得了一次历史性契机，以兑现联邦政府的结构性精简。咱们仍是作念好了准备，理睬来自华盛顿根深蒂固的利益集团的利弊反击。咱们瞻望将会见效。现在是时刻禁受鉴定当作了。

DOGE的首要盘算是在2026年7月4日（咱们为名目设定的截止日历）排斥自己存在的必要性。在好意思国开国250周年之际，莫得比为咱们国度委用一个让开国者粗犷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 edict. 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 regulation 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.

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 order 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.

Move fast and break things: the DOGE Plan to Reform Government.

-END-