馬斯克發布改革政府計劃

馬斯克 拉瑪斯·瓦米

2024年11月20日《華爾街日報》

我們的國家建立在一個基本理念之上：由我們選出的人（the people we elect）來管理政府。然而，美國當今的運作方式已經不再如此。大多數法令，并非國會通過的法律，而是由未經選舉的官僚頒布的“規則和法規”——每年頒布的法規數以萬計。大多數政府執法決策和自由裁量支出，并非由民選總統或其任命的政治官員做出，而是由政府機構內數以百萬計的未經選舉、未被任命的公務員決定，這些人自認為可以憑借公務員保護機制而免于被裁。

這種認識是反民 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會來解決這個問題。11月5日，選民們以壓倒性多數選出了特朗普，并賦予其進行全面變革的使命，他們應當享有這一結果。

特朗普總統已邀請我們二人領導一個新成立的“政府效率部”（簡稱DOGE），以精簡聯邦政府的規模。樹大根深且不斷膨脹的官僚體系對我們的共和國的生存構成了威脅，政治家們對此已縱容太久。這就是為什么我們要以不同的方式來行事。

我們是企業家，不是政客。我們將以外部志愿者的身份——而非聯邦官員或雇員——從事服務。與政府委員會或咨詢機構不同，我們不會只是撰寫報告或剪彩，我們將真正削減成本。

我們正在協助特朗普過渡團隊，識別并招聘一支精干的由小政府主義者（small-government crusaders）組成的團隊，其中包括一些美國最杰出的技術和法律人才。這個團隊將在新政府中與白宮管理和預算辦公室緊密合作。我們二人將在每一個步驟上為政府效率部提供咨詢，以推動三大類改革：

廢除過度監管，減少行政開支，節省成本。

我們將聚焦通過基于現有立法的行政措施推動改革，而不是通過制定新法律的方式。我們改革的指導思想是美國憲法，而且特別關注最高法院在拜登總統任期內做出的兩項關鍵裁決。

在西弗吉尼亞州訴環保署案（West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency，2022）中，最高法院裁定，除非國會明確授權，政府機構不能制定涉及重大經濟或政策問題的法規。在Loper Bright訴Raimondo一案（2024）中，最高法院推翻了“雪佛龍原則”，裁定聯邦法院不再對聯邦機構解釋法律或其自身制定規則的權力加以寬容。綜合來看，這些案件表明，當前大量的聯邦法規超出了國會根據法律賦予的權限。

DOGE將與政府機構的法律專家攜手合作，借助先進技術，依據這些判決對政府機構頒布的聯邦法規進行審查。DOGE將把這一法規清單提交給特朗普總統，他可以通過行政命令立即暫停這些法規的執行，并啟動審查和廢除程序。這將使個人和企業從未經國會通過的非法法規下解放出來，進而刺激美國經濟。

當總統廢除數以千計的此類法規，批評者可能會指責其濫用行政權力。事實上，這恰恰是對行政權力濫用——即未經國會授權便出臺數以千計的行政法規——的矯正。總統尊重國會的立法權，而不是尊重隱身于聯邦機構內的官僚。利用行政命令增加繁復的新規則，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誤地繞過國會的法規則是合法的、必要的。而且，在這些法規被完全廢除之后，未來的總統不能簡單地按下開關按鈕重新激活它們，而是必須要求國會重新通過。

大幅削減聯邦法規為在聯邦官僚體系中進行大規模裁員提供了合理的邏輯。DOGE計劃與各機構中的受任命者合作，識別每個機構為履行其憲法允許和法定授權的職能所需的最低員工數。聯邦雇員的裁減人數至少應該與聯邦法規的廢除數量成比例：法規越少，負責執行法規的雇員就越少，而且，一旦行政機構的權限得到恰當的限制，該機構制定的法規就會越少。被裁的員工理應得到尊重，DOGE的目標是提供相應支持，幫助他們過渡到私營部門。總統可以利用現有法律，為他們提供提前退休的激勵措施，并提供自愿離職補償，以幫助他們優雅地離開。傳統觀念認為，法定的公務員保護措施阻止總統乃至總統任命的政治人員解雇聯邦雇員。這些保護措施的目的是保護員工免受政治報復。但該法案允許進行不針對具體員工的裁員。該法案還賦予總統“制定競爭性服務管理規則”的權力，這一權力是廣泛的。以往的總統曾通過行政命令修改公務員規則，最高法院在Franklin訴Massachusetts（1992年）和Collins訴Yellen（2021年）諸案中裁定，他們在修改時并不受《行政程序法》的限制。憑借這一權力，特朗普可以實施任何數量的“競爭性服務管理規則”，以遏制行政機構的膨脹，從大規模裁員到將聯邦機構遷出華盛頓地區。要求聯邦雇員一周五天在辦公室工作，將會導致一波自愿離職潮，我們對此表示歡迎：如果聯邦雇員不愿到崗工作，試圖享受疫情期間居家辦公的特權，美國納稅人拒絕向其支付薪水。

最后，我們的重點是為納稅人節省成本。有些懷疑論者質疑DOGE僅通過行政命令能夠削減多少聯邦開支。他們提到1974年的《預算控制法》，該法案禁止總統停止國會授權的支出。特朗普曾提出該法案違憲，我們認為當前的最高法院可能會支持他的觀點。但即便不依賴這一點，DOGE也將通過瞄準每年超過5000億美元的未經國會授權或未以國會預期方式使用的聯邦開支，來幫助結束聯邦政府的過度開支。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，以及用于資助像計劃生育組織等進步團體的近3億美元。

聯邦政府的采購流程同樣存在嚴重問題。許多聯邦合同已經多年沒有經過審查。在暫時中止支付期間進行大規模審計將會帶來顯著的節省。最近，五角大樓連續第七次未能通過財務審計，這表明該機構的領導層幾乎不知道其每年超過8000億美元的預算是如何被花費的。批評者聲稱，我們無法在不削減像醫療保險（Medicare）和醫療補助（Medicaid）等福利項目的情況下有效地縮減聯邦赤字，這些項目需要由國會進行縮減。然而，這種說法轉移了對浪費、欺詐和濫用問題的關注，這些問題是幾乎所有納稅人都希望終結的，而DOGE旨在通過識別精準的行政行動，直接給納稅人節省成本。

憑借決定性的選舉授權和在最高法院的6:3保守派多數，DOGE獲得了一次歷史性機會，以實現聯邦政府的結構性精簡。我們已經做好了準備，迎接來自華盛頓根深蒂固的利益集團的強烈反擊。我們預計將會勝利。現在是時候采取果斷行動了。

DOGE的首要目標是在2026年7月4日（我們為項目設定的截止日期）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讓建國者驕傲的聯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）