美帝開始抄我們作業(yè)了

馬斯克發(fā)布改革政府計(jì)劃

馬斯克 拉瑪斯·瓦米

2024年11月20日《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》

我們的國家建立在一個(gè)基本理念之上：由我們選出的人（the people we elect）來管理政府。然而，美國當(dāng)今的運(yùn)作方式已經(jīng)不再如此。大多數(shù)法令，并非國會(huì)通過的法律，而是由未經(jīng)選舉的官僚頒布的“規(guī)則和法規(guī)”——每年頒布的法規(guī)數(shù)以萬計(jì)。大多數(shù)政府執(zhí)法決策和自由裁量支出，并非由民選總統(tǒng)或其任命的政治官員做出，而是由政府機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的未經(jīng)選舉、未被任命的公務(wù)員決定，這些人自認(rèn)為可以憑借公務(wù)員保護(hù)機(jī)制而免于被裁。

這種認(rèn)識(shí)是反民 主的，而且與建國者的愿景背道而馳。它給納稅人帶來了巨大的直接和間接成本。值得慶幸的是，我們獲得了一次歷史性的機(jī)會(huì)來解決這個(gè)問題。11月5日，選民們以壓倒性多數(shù)選出了特朗普，并賦予其進(jìn)行全面變革的使命，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)享有這一結(jié)果。

特朗普總統(tǒng)已邀請(qǐng)我們二人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)一個(gè)新成立的“政府效率部”（簡(jiǎn)稱DOGE），以精簡(jiǎn)聯(lián)邦政府的規(guī)模。樹大根深且不斷膨脹的官僚體系對(duì)我們的共和國的生存構(gòu)成了威脅，政治家們對(duì)此已縱容太久。這就是為什么我們要以不同的方式來行事。

我們是企業(yè)家，不是政客。我們將以外部志愿者的身份——而非聯(lián)邦官員或雇員——從事服務(wù)。與政府委員會(huì)或咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)不同，我們不會(huì)只是撰寫報(bào)告或剪彩，我們將真正削減成本。

我們正在協(xié)助特朗普過渡團(tuán)隊(duì)，識(shí)別并招聘一支精干的由小政府主義者（small-government crusaders）組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)，其中包括一些美國最杰出的技術(shù)和法律人才。這個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)將在新政府中與白宮管理和預(yù)算辦公室緊密合作。我們二人將在每一個(gè)步驟上為政府效率部提供咨詢，以推動(dòng)三大類改革：

廢除過度監(jiān)管，減少行政開支，節(jié)省成本。

我們將聚焦通過基于現(xiàn)有立法的行政措施推動(dòng)改革，而不是通過制定新法律的方式。我們改革的指導(dǎo)思想是美國憲法，而且特別關(guān)注最高法院在拜登總統(tǒng)任期內(nèi)做出的兩項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵裁決。

在西弗吉尼亞州訴環(huán)保署案（West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency，2022）中，最高法院裁定，除非國會(huì)明確授權(quán)，政府機(jī)構(gòu)不能制定涉及重大經(jīng)濟(jì)或政策問題的法規(guī)。在Loper Bright訴Raimondo一案（2024）中，最高法院推翻了“雪佛龍?jiān)瓌t”，裁定聯(lián)邦法院不再對(duì)聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)解釋法律或其自身制定規(guī)則的權(quán)力加以寬容。綜合來看，這些案件表明，當(dāng)前大量的聯(lián)邦法規(guī)超出了國會(huì)根據(jù)法律賦予的權(quán)限。

DOGE將與政府機(jī)構(gòu)的法律專家攜手合作，借助先進(jìn)技術(shù)，依據(jù)這些判決對(duì)政府機(jī)構(gòu)頒布的聯(lián)邦法規(guī)進(jìn)行審查。DOGE將把這一法規(guī)清單提交給特朗普總統(tǒng)，他可以通過行政命令立即暫停這些法規(guī)的執(zhí)行，并啟動(dòng)審查和廢除程序。這將使個(gè)人和企業(yè)從未經(jīng)國會(huì)通過的非法法規(guī)下解放出來，進(jìn)而刺激美國經(jīng)濟(jì)。

當(dāng)總統(tǒng)廢除數(shù)以千計(jì)的此類法規(guī)，批評(píng)者可能會(huì)指責(zé)其濫用行政權(quán)力。事實(shí)上，這恰恰是對(duì)行政權(quán)力濫用——即未經(jīng)國會(huì)授權(quán)便出臺(tái)數(shù)以千計(jì)的行政法規(guī)——的矯正。總統(tǒng)尊重國會(huì)的立法權(quán)，而不是尊重隱身于聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)的官僚。利用行政命令增加繁復(fù)的新規(guī)則，以替代立法，是一種違憲行為。不過，為了遵循最高法院最近的裁決，使用行政命令來撤銷那些錯(cuò)誤地繞過國會(huì)的法規(guī)則是合法的、必要的。而且，在這些法規(guī)被完全廢除之后，未來的總統(tǒng)不能簡(jiǎn)單地按下開關(guān)按鈕重新激活它們，而是必須要求國會(huì)重新通過。

大幅削減聯(lián)邦法規(guī)為在聯(lián)邦官僚體系中進(jìn)行大規(guī)模裁員提供了合理的邏輯。DOGE計(jì)劃與各機(jī)構(gòu)中的受任命者合作，識(shí)別每個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)為履行其憲法允許和法定授權(quán)的職能所需的最低員工數(shù)。聯(lián)邦雇員的裁減人數(shù)至少應(yīng)該與聯(lián)邦法規(guī)的廢除數(shù)量成比例：法規(guī)越少，負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行法規(guī)的雇員就越少，而且，一旦行政機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)限得到恰當(dāng)?shù)南拗疲摍C(jī)構(gòu)制定的法規(guī)就會(huì)越少。被裁的員工理應(yīng)得到尊重，DOGE的目標(biāo)是提供相應(yīng)支持，幫助他們過渡到私營(yíng)部門。總統(tǒng)可以利用現(xiàn)有法律，為他們提供提前退休的激勵(lì)措施，并提供自愿離職補(bǔ)償，以幫助他們優(yōu)雅地離開。傳統(tǒng)觀念認(rèn)為，法定的公務(wù)員保護(hù)措施阻止總統(tǒng)乃至總統(tǒng)任命的政治人員解雇聯(lián)邦雇員。這些保護(hù)措施的目的是保護(hù)員工免受政治報(bào)復(fù)。但該法案允許進(jìn)行不針對(duì)具體員工的裁員。該法案還賦予總統(tǒng)“制定競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性服務(wù)管理規(guī)則”的權(quán)力，這一權(quán)力是廣泛的。以往的總統(tǒng)曾通過行政命令修改公務(wù)員規(guī)則，最高法院在Franklin訴Massachusetts（1992年）和Collins訴Yellen（2021年）諸案中裁定，他們?cè)谛薷臅r(shí)并不受《行政程序法》的限制。憑借這一權(quán)力，特朗普可以實(shí)施任何數(shù)量的“競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性服務(wù)管理規(guī)則”，以遏制行政機(jī)構(gòu)的膨脹，從大規(guī)模裁員到將聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)遷出華盛頓地區(qū)。要求聯(lián)邦雇員一周五天在辦公室工作，將會(huì)導(dǎo)致一波自愿離職潮，我們對(duì)此表示歡迎：如果聯(lián)邦雇員不愿到崗工作，試圖享受疫情期間居家辦公的特權(quán)，美國納稅人拒絕向其支付薪水。

最后，我們的重點(diǎn)是為納稅人節(jié)省成本。有些懷疑論者質(zhì)疑DOGE僅通過行政命令能夠削減多少聯(lián)邦開支。他們提到1974年的《預(yù)算控制法》，該法案禁止總統(tǒng)停止國會(huì)授權(quán)的支出。特朗普曾提出該法案違憲，我們認(rèn)為當(dāng)前的最高法院可能會(huì)支持他的觀點(diǎn)。但即便不依賴這一點(diǎn)，DOGE也將通過瞄準(zhǔn)每年超過5000億美元的未經(jīng)國會(huì)授權(quán)或未以國會(huì)預(yù)期方式使用的聯(lián)邦開支，來幫助結(jié)束聯(lián)邦政府的過度開支。這些開支包括每年用于公共廣播公司的5.35億美元、用于給國際組織撥款的15億美元，以及用于資助像計(jì)劃生育組織等進(jìn)步團(tuán)體的近3億美元。

聯(lián)邦政府的采購流程同樣存在嚴(yán)重問題。許多聯(lián)邦合同已經(jīng)多年沒有經(jīng)過審查。在暫時(shí)中止支付期間進(jìn)行大規(guī)模審計(jì)將會(huì)帶來顯著的節(jié)省。最近，五角大樓連續(xù)第七次未能通過財(cái)務(wù)審計(jì)，這表明該機(jī)構(gòu)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層幾乎不知道其每年超過8000億美元的預(yù)算是如何被花費(fèi)的。批評(píng)者聲稱，我們無法在不削減像醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)（Medicare）和醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助（Medicaid）等福利項(xiàng)目的情況下有效地縮減聯(lián)邦赤字，這些項(xiàng)目需要由國會(huì)進(jìn)行縮減。然而，這種說法轉(zhuǎn)移了對(duì)浪費(fèi)、欺詐和濫用問題的關(guān)注，這些問題是幾乎所有納稅人都希望終結(jié)的，而DOGE旨在通過識(shí)別精準(zhǔn)的行政行動(dòng)，直接給納稅人節(jié)省成本。

憑借決定性的選舉授權(quán)和在最高法院的6:3保守派多數(shù)，DOGE獲得了一次歷史性機(jī)會(huì)，以實(shí)現(xiàn)聯(lián)邦政府的結(jié)構(gòu)性精簡(jiǎn)。我們已經(jīng)做好了準(zhǔn)備，迎接來自華盛頓根深蒂固的利益集團(tuán)的強(qiáng)烈反擊。我們預(yù)計(jì)將會(huì)勝利。現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候采取果斷行動(dòng)了。

DOGE的首要目標(biāo)是在2026年7月4日（我們?yōu)轫?xiàng)目設(shè)定的截止日期）消除自身存在的必要性。在美國建國250周年之際，沒有比為我們國家交付一個(gè)讓建國者驕傲的聯(lián)邦政府更好的生日禮物了。

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.（完）