这是用户在 2024-11-27 24:41 为 https://archive.md/w9M80 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government - W…
埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk) 和维韦克·拉马斯瓦米 (Vivek Ramaswamy):改革政府的 DOGE 计划 - W...

archived 27 Nov 2024 04:08:09 UTC
  • Conversation
  • What to Read Next 下一步阅读
  • Most Popular News
  • Most Popular Opinion 最受欢迎的观点
  • Recommended Videos 推荐视频
Opinion
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government
埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk) 和维韦克·拉马斯瓦米 (Vivek Ramaswamy):改革政府的 DOGE 计划

Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab.
根据最高法院的指导,我们将扭转长达数十年的行政权力攫取。

By
Elon Musk
and
Vivek Ramaswamy

作者:Elon Musk 和 Vivek Ramaswamy
ET
David Gothard
Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.
我们的国家建立在这样一个基本理念之上,即我们选出的人民管理政府。这不是美国今天的运作方式。大多数法律法令不是国会颁布的法律,而是由非民选官僚颁布的“规章制度”——每年有数以万计的官僚。大多数政府执法决定和可自由支配的支出不是由民选总统甚至他的政治任命者做出的,而是由政府机构内数百万未经选举、未经任命的公务员做出的,他们认为由于公务员保护,自己不会被解雇。
This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.
这是反民主的,与开国元勋的愿景背道而驰。它给纳税人带来了巨大的直接和间接成本。值得庆幸的是,我们有一个历史性的机会来解决这个问题。11月5日,选民果断地选举了唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump),他被赋予了全面变革的使命,他们应该得到它。
President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.
特朗普总统要求我们两人领导一个新成立的政府效率部 (DOGE),以缩小联邦政府的规模。根深蒂固且不断增长的官僚机构对我们的共和国构成了生存威胁,政客们已经教唆它太久了。这就是我们以不同的方式做事的原因。我们是企业家,不是政客。我们将作为外部志愿者服务,而不是联邦官员或雇员。与政府委员会或咨询委员会不同,我们不会只是撰写报告或剪彩。我们将削减成本。
We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
我们正在协助特朗普过渡团队寻找并雇用一支由小政府斗士组成的精干团队,其中包括美国一些最敏锐的技术和法律人才。该团队将在新政府中与白宫管理和预算办公室密切合作。我们两个人将在每一步都建议 DOGE 追求三大改革:监管撤销、行政减少和成本节约。我们将特别注重通过基于现有立法的行政行动来推动变革,而不是通过新的法律。我们改革的北极星将是美国宪法,重点是拜登总统任期内最高法院发布的两项关键裁决。
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.
西弗吉尼亚州诉环境保护署案(2022 年)中,大法官们认为,除非国会特别授权,否则各机构不能制定处理重大经济或政策问题的法规。在 Loper Bright 诉 Raimondo 案 (2024) 中,法院推翻了 Chevron 原则,并认为联邦法院不应再服从联邦机构对法律的解释或他们自己的规则制定机构。这些案例共同表明,现行的大量联邦法规超出了国会依法授予的权力。
DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.
DOGE 将与政府机构中的法律专家合作,在先进技术的帮助下,将这些裁决应用于这些机构颁布的联邦法规。DOGE 将向特朗普总统提交这份法规清单,特朗普总统可以通过行政行动立即暂停这些法规的执行并启动审查和撤销程序。这将使个人和企业摆脱国会从未通过的非法法规,并刺激美国经济。
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.
当总统废除数以千计的此类法规时,批评者会指责行政越权。事实上,它将纠正行政法规颁布的数千项从未得到国会授权的法规的行政越权行为。总统在立法方面应尊重国会,而不是尊重联邦机构内部的官僚。使用行政命令通过增加繁琐的新规则来取代立法是一种对宪法的侮辱,但使用行政命令来撤销错误绕过国会的法规是合法的,也是遵守最高法院最近授权所必需的。在这些法规被完全废除之后,未来的总统不能简单地拨动开关并恢复它们,而是必须要求国会这样做。
A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.
联邦法规的大幅减少为整个联邦官僚机构的大规模裁员提供了合理的工业逻辑。DOGE 打算与机构中的嵌入式任命人员合作,以确定机构履行其宪法允许和法定职责所需的最低员工人数。要裁员的联邦雇员人数至少应与被废除的联邦法规的数量成正比:不仅需要执行更少法规的雇员更少,而且一旦其权力范围得到适当限制,该机构制定的法规也会减少。职位被取消的员工应该得到尊重,DOGE 的目标是帮助支持他们过渡到私营部门。总统可以利用现有法律激励他们提前退休,并自愿支付遣散费,以促进他们体面地退出。
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.
传统观点认为,法定的公务员保护可以阻止总统甚至他的政治任命者解雇联邦工作人员。这些保护措施的目的是保护员工免受政治报复。但该法规允许不针对特定雇员的“裁员”。该法规进一步授权总统“制定管理竞争性服务的规则”。这种力量是广泛的。前几任总统都曾利用它通过行政命令修改公务员规则,最高法院在富兰克林诉马萨诸塞州案(1992 年)和柯林斯诉耶伦案(2021 年)中认为,他们在这样做时不受《行政程序法》的约束。有了这项权力,特朗普可以实施任何数量的“管理竞争性服务的规则”,以减少行政过度扩张,从大规模解雇到将联邦机构迁出华盛顿地区。要求联邦雇员每周来办公室五天将导致一波自愿解雇浪潮,我们对此表示欢迎:如果联邦雇员不想出现,美国纳税人就不应该为他们支付 Covid 时代待在家里的特权。
Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.
最后,我们专注于为纳税人节省成本。怀疑论者质疑 DOGE 仅通过行政行动就能驯服多少联邦支出。他们指出,1974年的《扣押控制法》(Impoundment Control Act)阻止总统停止国会授权的支出。特朗普先生此前曾表示该法规违宪,我们相信现任最高法院可能会在这个问题上站在他一边。但即使不依赖这种观点,DOGE 也将帮助结束联邦超支,通过瞄准国会未经授权或以国会从未打算的方式使用的 5000 多亿美元的年度联邦支出,从每年向公共广播公司提供 5.35 亿美元,向国际组织提供 15 亿美元赠款,到向计划生育联合会等进步团体提供近 3 亿美元。
The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.
联邦政府的采购程序也严重中断。许多联邦合同多年来一直没有得到审查。在暂时暂停付款期间进行大规模审计将产生显着的节省。五角大楼最近连续第七次未通过审计,这表明该机构的领导层对其超过 8000 亿美元的年度预算的支出知之甚少。批评者声称,如果不瞄准需要国会缩减规模的医疗保险和医疗补助等福利计划,我们就无法有意义地缩小联邦赤字。但这转移了人们对几乎所有纳税人都希望结束的大量浪费、欺诈和滥用行为的注意力,而 DOGE 旨在通过确定能够立即为纳税人节省成本的精确行政行动来解决这一问题。
With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.
凭借决定性的选举授权和最高法院 6-3 的保守派多数,DOGE 拥有对联邦政府进行结构性裁减的历史性机会。我们已经准备好迎接来自华盛顿根深蒂固的利益集团的冲击。我们期待胜利。现在是采取果断行动的时候了。我们对 DOGE 的首要目标是在 2026 年 7 月 4 日之前消除对它存在的需求——这是我们为项目设定的到期日期。在建国 250 周年之际,没有比交付一个让我们的开国元勋感到自豪的联邦政府更好的生日礼物了。
Mr. Musk is CEO of SpaceX and Tesla. Mr. Ramaswamy, a businessman, is author, most recently, of “Truths: The Future of America First” and was a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. President-elect Trump has named them co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency.
马斯克先生是 SpaceX 和特斯拉的首席执行官。拉马斯瓦米先生是一名商人,最近出版了《真相:美国优先的未来》(Truths: The Future of America First),并且是 2024 年共和党总统提名的候选人。当选总统特朗普已任命他们为政府效率部(Department of Government Efficiency)的联合负责人。
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the November 21, 2024, print edition as 'The DOGE Plan to Reform Government'.
出现在 2024 年 11 月 21 日的印刷版中,标题为“改革政府的 DOGE 计划”。

Commenting on this article has ended
对本文的评论已结束

Sort by  排序方式
  • The barnyard doesn't get shoveled by itself. Ya gotta start somewhere and these two poweful disruptors are the perfect pair to get the ball rolling. Perhaps Gates and Buffett from the other side of the aisle would like to volunteer.
    谷仓不会自己铲。你必须从某个地方开始,而这两个强大的颠覆者是让球滚动的完美搭档。也许过道另一边的盖茨和巴菲特也想做志愿者。
    ·
    • Elon as a cost cutter? Hmm, Tesla was founded just under 23 years ago. Assuming Elon worked 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year for those 23 years, his hourly pay works out to be 1.83 Million dollars / hour. Well played Elon!
      Elon 作为成本削减者?嗯,特斯拉成立于不到 23 年前。假设 Elon 在这 23 年中一年 24 天、每天 365 小时工作,他的时薪为 183 万美元/小时。Elon 玩得好!
      ·
      • Let's get this nonsense over with. Two brilliant men but with little competence in federal funding and whose ideas are most influenced more by conspiracy than knowledge. Almost all the inefficiency is induced by the congress. We already know that high dollar defense inefficiency and waste comes from CRAs and unwillingness for procurement multi-year funding. Almost all the waste and inefficiency in welfare programs is generated by the states. Mississippi made poor unassuming Bret Farve the new face of welfare fraud. Every appropriation that funds the largest to the smallest federal organizations comes with specific instructions or previously pasted laws that restrict how the funding can be spent and what it can be spent on. The federal workforce has not ballooned in size over decades. They'll discover that agencies do not operate outside the legal parameters set by congress except in the imagination of MAGA conservatives. They will also discover that social security does not contribute to the deficit. Once the reality sets in, to get the trillion they are looking for will required substantive changes to congressional behavior and workload along with the very sound basis for the constitutionality of that 1974 law they are pinning their hopes on.
        ·
        • The real test for Elon Musk will be whether or not he stops accepting payments from the Federal Government in respect of "credits" that his competitors (Ford, Chevie, et al) purchase from Tesla because they have failed to sell the correct amount of EV's.
           
          Musk sells as many Tesla's as the market will absorb. Why should the Treasury pay him for his competitor's failures?
           
          Tesla's 10Q noted that the sales of these 'Credits" to his competitors was a significant portion of Tesla's profit.
           
          If the aim is to punish the Auto Makers who don't sell enough EV's wouldn't it make more sense to send the "credits" make to the treasury.
           
          If Musk fails at this simple task then we will know that he is simply an opportunist.
          ·
          • I understand there have been thoughts to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and the Social Security full retirement age to 70.
            ·
            • I applaud the intent of DOGE. My concern is the goals are huge, given the Federal Government's immense size, scope and bureaucracy. How can more people become engaged to support?
              ·
              • It is interesting and gratifying that Musk/Ramaswamy called out the wasteful federal funding for NPR in their commentary. I can see the cogs of panic already turning in the whole public radio far-left-leaning, woke mindset. I mention this because for many years I not only appreciated the service NPR provided but also supported it with my hard-earned dollars. NPR news has historically had a liberal bent, and if it were only that, I may still be supporting them. However, in the last ten years or so, it has become increasingly clear that the management at NPR is not only biased, but has an increasing intolerance for anything resembling traditional, conservative values, along with any who would dare to represent those values. For some time, I gritted my teeth and listened to their newscasts anyway, even though they inevitably made me angry with their narrow-minded intolerance. Eventually it was just not worth bothering with it, so I quit listening to NPR entirely around five or six years ago. I quit supporting them many years before that. NPR serves only a small woke minority of the American public, and thus, does not deserve public support. Kudos to Musk and Ramaswamy for calling them out!
                ·
                • Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy write:
                   
                  -“They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.”-
                   
                  I got two points.
                   
                  First, on the law question, the President unilaterally ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress has the same effect as a line item veto. The Supreme Court has ruled line item vetos are unconstitutional.
                   
                  Second, as a political matter, lobbyists and donors give big campaign contributions to both Democrat and Republican incumbents to make sure their bought and paid for special interest expenditures will turn into actual government cash outlays used for their intended purposes. Musk and Ramaswamy are no match this entrenched politician-swamp partnership.
                   
                  Using a concept like DOGE to shrink the government will fail. To be successful, Trump must coerce Congress to cut both entitlements and discretionary expenditures. In his first term, the President-Elect never demonstrated that type of leadership.
                  (Edited)
                  ·
                  • This is a serious, purposeful, goal oriented endeavor, by very smart people, and should worry Democrats, with their entrenched bureaucracy, voting Democrat, , electioneering for Democrats, donating to Democrats, and targeting conservatives and Republicans with their regulations, at Democrats behest. If they can accomplish and realize their goals, this project, will have shifted the balance of power, back to the people, the citizenry, for generations.
                    ·
                    • Red states receive more federal aid per capita compared to blue states, so they would be hurt more. States like Kentucky, Mississippi, and West Virginia, which are traditionally red, receive significant federal funding relative to their state budgets.
                      ·
                    • DOGE - pronounced “doggy”
                       
                      Sit DOGE. Rollover DOGE. Fetch DOGE. Heel DOGE.
                       
                      Play dead DOGE.
                      (Edited)
                      ·
                      • I suspect the July 2026 report will provide a road map highlighting government waste with suggestions for cutting various Washington departments and staff. The nuts and bolts of how they clean this up is not clear to me. Doing this trough executive orders provides a temporary fix a future President can undo.
                         
                        On the other hand calling out government waste and mismanagement in detail and presenting it to the American people, including the actions required to clean it all up, perhaps will shame Congress into doing something more permanent. Trump has turned the dogs loose so I'll stay tuned......
                        ·
                        • I doubt Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy wrote this.
                          ·
                          • I doubt this was published without their approval / agreement.
                            ·
                          • They are "volunteering".
                             
                            Let's see how much Musk's wealth rises while he is in the inside lane of government. Let's see how the increasing efficiency of government spills out to buttress his bottom line.
                            ·