学习材料：马斯克变革政府方案全文(中英文)

发布时间：2025-05-06　点此：87次

来历：商场资讯

马斯克发布革新政府方案

马斯克拉玛斯瓦米

2024年11月20日《华尔街日报》

咱们的国家建立在一个根本理念之上：由咱们选出的人（the people we elect）来办理政府。但是，美国当今的运作方法现已不再如此。大大都法则，并非国会经过的法令，而是由未经推举的官僚公布的“规矩和法规”——每年公布的法规数以万计。大大都政府法令决议方案和自在裁量开销，并非由民选总统或其录用的政治官员做出，而是由政府安排内数以百万计的未经推举、未被录用的公务员决议，这些人自以为可以凭仗公务员维护机制而免于被裁。

这种知道是反民主的，并且与建国者的愿景各走各路。它给纳税人带来了巨大的直接和间接本钱。值得幸亏的是，咱们获得了一次历史性的时机来处理这个问题。11月5日，选民们以压倒性大都选出了特朗普，并赋予其进行全面革新的任务，他们应当享有这一成果。

特朗普总统已约请咱们二人领导一个新建立的“政府效率部”（简称DOGE），以精简联邦政府的规划。树大根深且不断胀大的官僚系统对咱们的共和国的生计构成了要挟，政治家们对此已怂恿太久。这便是为什么咱们要以不同的方法来行事。

咱们是企业家，不是政客。咱们将以外部志愿者的身份——而非联邦官员或雇员——从事服务。与政府委员会或咨询安排不同，咱们不会仅仅编撰陈述或剪彩，咱们将真实减少本钱。

咱们正在帮忙特朗普过渡团队，辨认并招聘一支精干的由小政府主义者（small-government crusaders）组成的团队，其间包含一些美国最出色的技能和法令人才。这个团队将在新政府中与白宫办理和预算工作室严密协作。咱们二人将在每一个过程上为政府效率部供给咨询，以推进三大类革新：

废弃过度监管，减少行政开支，节约本钱。

咱们将聚集经过根据现有立法的行政办法推进革新，而不是经过拟定新法令的方法。咱们革新的指导思想是美国宪法，并且特别重视最高法院在拜登总统任期内做出的两项要害判定。

在西弗吉尼亚州诉环保署案（West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency，2022）中，最高法院判决，除非国会清晰授权，政府安排不能拟定触及严重经济或方针问题的法规。在Loper Bright诉Raimondo一案（2024）中，最高法院推翻了“雪佛龙准则”，判决联邦法院不再对联邦安排解说法令或其本身拟定规矩的权利加以宽恕。归纳来看，这些案子标明，当时很多的联邦法规超出了国会根据法令赋予的权限。

DOGE将与政府安排的法令专家携手协作，凭仗先进技能，根据这些判定对政府安排公布的联邦法规进行检查。DOGE将把这一法规清单提交给特朗普总统，他可以经过行政命令当即暂停这些法规的实行，并发动检查和废弃程序。这将使个人和企业从未经国会经过的不合法法规下解放出来，从而影响美国经济。

当总统废弃数以千计的此类法规，批评者可能会责备其乱用行政权利。事实上，这恰恰是对行政权利乱用——即未经国会授权便出台数以千计的行政法规——的纠正。总统尊重国会的立法权，而不是尊重隐身于联邦安排内的官僚。运用行政命令添加繁复的新规矩，以代替立法，是一种违宪行为。不过，为了遵从最高法院最近的判定，运用行政命令来吊销那些过错地绕过国会的法规矩是合法的、必要的。并且，在这些法规被彻底废弃之后，未来的总统不能简略地按下开关按钮从头激活它们，而是有必要要求国会从头经过。

大幅减少联邦法规为在联邦官僚系统中进行大规划裁人供给了合理的逻辑。DOGE方案与各安排中的受录用者协作，辨认每个安排为实行其宪法答应和法定授权的功能所需的最低职工数。联邦雇员的减少人数至少应该与联邦法规的废弃数量成份额：法规越少，担任实行法规的雇员就越少，并且，一旦行政安排的权限得到恰当的约束，该安排拟定的法规就会越少。被裁的职工理应得到尊重，DOGE的方针是供给相应支撑，协助他们过渡到私营部门。总统可以运用现有法令，为他们供给提前退休的鼓励办法，并供给自愿离任补偿，以协助他们高雅地脱离。

传统观念以为，法定的公务员维护办法阻挠总统甚至总统录用的政治人员辞退联邦雇员。这些维护办法的意图是维护职工免受政治报复。但该法案答应进行不针对详细职工的裁人。该法案还赋予总统“拟定竞争性服务办理规矩”的权利，这一权利是广泛的。以往的总统曾经过行政命令修正公务员规矩，最高法院在Franklin诉Massachusetts（1992年）和Collins诉Yellen（2021年）诸案中判决，他们在修正时并不受《行政程序法》的约束。凭仗这一权利，特朗普可以施行任何数量的“竞争性服务办理规矩”，以遏止行政安排的胀大，从大规划裁人到将联邦安排迁出华盛顿区域。要求联邦雇员一周五天在工作室作业，将会导致一波自愿离任潮，咱们对此表明欢迎：假如联邦雇员不肯到岗作业，企图享用疫情期间居家工作的特权，美国纳税人回绝向其付出薪水。

最终，咱们的重点是为纳税人节约本钱。有些怀疑论者质疑DOGE仅经过行政命令可以减少多少联邦开支。他们说到1974年的《预算控制法》，该法案制止总统中止国会授权的开销。特朗普曾提出该法案违宪，咱们以为当时的最高法院可能会支撑他的观念。但即使不依赖这一点，DOGE也将经过瞄准每年超越5000亿美元的未经国会授权或未以国会预期方法运用的联邦开支，来协助完毕联邦政府的过度开支。这些开支包含每年用于公共广播公司的5.35亿美元、用于给国际安排拨款的15亿美元，以及用于赞助像方案生育安排等前进集体的近3亿美元。

联邦政府的收购流程相同存在严重问题。许多联邦合同现已多年没有经过检查。在暂时中止付出期间进行大规划审计将会带来明显的节约。最近，五角大楼接连第七次未能经过财政审计，这标明该安排的领导层简直不知道其每年超越8000亿美元的预算是怎么被花费的。批评者宣称，咱们无法在不减少像医疗保险（Medicare）和医疗补助（Medicaid）等福利项意图情况下有效地减缩联邦赤字，这些项目需要由国会进行减缩。但是，这种说法转移了对糟蹋、诈骗和乱用问题的重视，这些问题是简直一切纳税人都期望完结的，而DOGE旨在经过辨认精准的行政举动，直接给纳税人节约本钱。

凭仗决议性的推举授权和在最高法院的6：3保守派大都，DOGE获得了一次历史性时机，以完成联邦政府的结构性精简。咱们现已做好了预备，迎候来自华盛顿根深柢固的利益集团的激烈反击。咱们估计将会成功。现在是时分采纳决断举动了。

DOGE的首要方针是在2026年7月4日（咱们为项目设定的截止日期）消除本身存在的必要性。在美国建国250周年之际，没有比为咱们国家交给一个让建国者自豪的联邦政府更好的生日礼物了。

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.

（转自：中国地产基金百人会）

告发/反应