jakiro
Written by: Guan Buyu, source: Glacier Sixianghao
The federal government often “shuts” and “closes” are the “daily crisis” of American politics.From 1977 to the present, the US federal government has “shut down” more than 20 times, ranging from days to weeks.The script that is shut down is almost the same every time.The differences between the president and the two houses of Congress on the government budget cannot be eliminated, and the federal government announced a “closure.”
Political and economic commentators announced bad news to the public in a heavy mood, and their pessimistic predictions include but are not limited to “social order turbulence”, “national debt default”, and “economic setback”, which are panic.The crisis eventually resolved and the market recovered.Wall Street made a lot of tears in the capital market.
It is quite interesting that no matter how many days or weeks of shutdown, “social order turbulence”, “treasury debt default” and “economic setback” have never happened in the United States.
The shutdown is a real shutdown, but it is limited to the “non-core departments” of the US federal government, and core departments such as defense, justice, and finance operate as usual.The court still has to open the door and taxes will not stop.
Therefore, there will be neither “social turmoil” nor “national debt default”.In addition to the slight inconvenience caused by the closure of some national cultural facilities such as art galleries, museums, and national parks, people’s lives are almost not affected by the “shutdown”.This makes people wonder, so what if those “non-core departments” are always “stopped”?
How large are these “non-core departments” that stop after stopping, it is difficult to get a glimpse of the overall scale.Because most shutdowns have temporary appropriations bills, the “non-core departments” have never been shut down.The most widely affected in history was the “shutdown” of the Clinton administration in 1996, and 100,000 federal employees took unpaid leave.This is certainly not all, but it is also quite amazing.
No one can tell how many employees the “non-core department” of the U.S. federal government has raised, providing American citizens with “services” they do not need.However, the consequences of this are well known,That is, the federal government’s finances are already too large to bear.
In fiscal year 2024, U.S. federal spending increased by $1.695 trillion from the previous fiscal year to $5.742 trillion, with a deficit ratio rising from 6.2% to 6.4%.Federal spending accounts for 23.4% of GDP.High expenditures and high deficits are approaching the debt ceiling again.The alarm about the fiscal crisis sounded again.
Image/Video Screenshot
It is no secret that the United States has established a country based on the principle of “limited government” and still cannot escape the trap of “big government”.The American people have been suffering for a long time.In every election campaign, balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, and reducing the national debt are the issues that voters are most concerned about.Politicians on both sides made generous promises, but never fulfilled them.
It was not until Elon Musk led the DOGE (US Department of Efficiency) team broke into the “Porcelain Store” in Washington that it finally took real action.
Since the official establishment of DOGE on January 20, the Executive Committee of the Chief Diversified Officials (CDOEC), reduced the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 10,000 to 300, and vowed to “use” more than 10 departments including the Ministry of Education and freeze recruitment for non-essential positions.This huge wave of US federal government slimming surgery has undoubtedly caused huge controversy.
Does DOGE have the right to “get into the house”?Is there a milder alternative to Musk’s radical “surgical” plan?It is the focus of the debate.
Among the many views opposed to DOGE, the most funny one is “not authorized by the federal government.”If the “federal government” refers to civil servants and bureaucrats, it is conceivable that no drastic reform can be “authorized”.There is no room for rapists to authorize them to castrate them.
Fortunately, the US Constitution does not grant executive power to “federal employees.”No matter how high a “federal employee” is, he is just an executive officer and is only a worker for the federal government.DOGE does not require their authorization.
Another reason for accusing DOGE of overtaking his authority is that it is “not organized” – DOGE is not a formal department of the cabinet.In fact, this is also a misunderstanding of the establishment of the presidential system of the US Constitution.Unlike many other countries,The US Constitution completely gives executive power to a democratically elected president, which is a major feature of the US presidential system.Under this institutional design, the US cabinet itself is not “formal” and “organization” is not important.
In order to ensure the integrity of the executive power of the US president, the US Constitution does not clearly stipulate the status of the “cabinet” and does not stipulate the president’s communication with the cabinet.Therefore, the US president makes independent decisions when formulating and implementing major policies, and does not rely on the opinions of the cabinet.The US president is both the head of state and the head of the cabinet, and the cabinet members are only advisers and executors of the president’s decision-making.
The presidential team of non-cabinet departments participates in decision-making and is authorized by the president to participate in administrative affairs. There are many precedents in American history, which can be regarded as a normalized operating mechanism.
These “informal” presidential teams are often called the “×× Cabinet”.For example, President Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet”, Grover Cleveland’s “Fishing Cabinet”, Theodore Roosevelt’s “Tennis Cabinet”, and Alan Harding’s “Poker Cabinet”, etc.The formal cabinet is called the “living room cabinet”.The coexistence of the “×× Cabinet” and the “living room Cabinet” are parallel, which is the norm in the American administrative system.
▲DOGE’s office is located in the Eisenhower Administrative Office Building (Photo/Wikipedia)
Compared with many “×× Cabinets”, DOGE is quite formal in procedurally.DOGE is established based on Executive Order No. 14158 signed on the first day of Trump’s taking office on January 20, 2025. It is a formal department of the President’s Executive Office.The executive order also reorganized the US Digital Services Agency to the US DOGE Services Agency, which is a technical department under the President’s Executive Office and an “old department” established by President Obama’s executive order.
The Cabinet department cooperates with the president-authorized executive team to carry out work is also a common operation in American politics.Moreover, this “staffed” and “unstaffed” gameplay is used to eliminate interference from the administrative system and implement strong reforms.The most famous one is the “Roosevelt New Deal” led by Franklin Roosevelt’s “think tank”, and Obama’s welfare reform is also this model.
If Roosevelt did it and Obama did it, Trump could not do it?Because Trump is a “bad person” and a “bad president”, he needs to develop another set of “federal government authorization”, which is obviously wrong.
Therefore, we can be dissatisfied with DOGE’s reform, but accusing DOGE of “not obtaining the federal government’s authorization” is groundless, neither legal nor factual basis.
The controversial point of the DOGE reform is not the internal authorization of the administrative system, but the external relationship with the US Congress’ budget management rights.This is also reflected in public opinion.Let’s first look at a poll from the Harvard team:
It should be noted that the polls at Harvard were chosen not because of how reliable Harvard was, but because of Harvard’s left-wing position, it would not favor the Trump administration, so it is more convincing.
In this poll, there are two items involving DOGE.”Find and eliminate fraud and waste in government spending” is the function of DOGE, with a support rate of up to 76%, and there is no controversy.After experiencing the unstable “stop” of the federal government every now and then, the American people have also seen the trick.
“Reducing government spending already allocated by Congress” is what DOGE is currently doing. The 59% approval rating itself is not low, and it is still a little different from 76%, which is considered to be a bit of a concern.
▲Public support and opposition rates for Trump’s different policies (Photo/Internet)
The doubts of the American people are not that these “allocated government spending” do not contain fraud and waste, but that the authority to adjust the budget is attributable to the right.If the budget management rights are completely within the US Congress as scholar Fukuyama and other DOGE critics said, then the executive branch’s DOGE’s budget cut is suspected of being overstepping its authority.The US Treasury Department also once refused DOGE to obtain the bottom line of spending on this reason.
However, the US Constitution does not package the relevant powers of the budget to Congress in general, and “fiscal power to Congress” is not an accurate statement.
The fiscal power originally granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution was the right to tax and appropriation. The original text of the Constitution stated as follows: “It stipulates and collects direct taxes, indirect taxes, import taxes and goods taxes to repay national debts and provide common defenses and public welfare of the United States, but all indirect taxes, import taxes and goods taxes should be unified nationwide.”
The U.S. Congress’s oversight over budget is derived from the appropriation rights.In layman’s terms, Congress has the right to supervise whether the grants given to the government are used for special purposes.In terms of process, the government proposes a budget bill to ask Congress for money, and Congress adds and reduces it, and comes up with its own version of the budget.
In this bargaining process, Congress can say no to the president, and the president can also veto Congress’ budget legislation.Until an agreement is reached, a final budget plan is formed, and Congress oversees the use of the grant.
From this process, we can see that the fiscal power of budget management is not exclusive to Congress. The federal government represented by the president does not passively accept Congress’ budget management, but actively participates in decision-making.Congress’s power to oversee budgetary finance is not exclusive.The U.S. federal government has always had internal audits, which does not hinder Congress’s oversight of budget use.
Therefore, after DOGE obtained the president’s administrative authorization, he went to the Ministry of Finance to check the accounts and did not exceed his authority.This is not a dispute between the Ministry of Finance and DOGE, but a battle against the presidential executive.The U.S. Constitution does not give the Treasury Department the independent status of responsibility to Congress, and the Treasury Department is undisputedly an executive branch under the president’s jurisdiction.
If the lawsuit is really to be beaten to the Supreme Court, the US Treasury Department is extremely likely to lose the case.Once you lose the case, you will become even more passive.Therefore, the Ministry of Finance finally chose to “substitute and surrender.”The US Treasury Department itself has no confidence to confront it to the end. Those who oppose DOGE still have to make a statement about this. It is very hard-working.
Picture/Tiuzhun Creative
What DOGE’s existing actions are really controversial is the budget cut.These budgets involved in departmental laid-offs and shrinking functions were approved by Congress.Congress gave money, does the government have the right not to spend it?
Supporters believe that Congress’s funding rights to budgets should not and cannot prevent the government from saving money.There are many precedents for government agencies to adjust and directly cut budgets. DOGE is nothing more than a big deal, and there is no difference in nature.
Opponents believe that many of these budgets have been implemented to the stage of business contracts, and sudden cuts will cause private losses.This is also based on evidence. For example, the International Development Agency, which was hit hard this time, had a budget of US$50 million to purchase US agricultural products and aid, but was cut off by DOGE and the seller suffered losses.
From a legal perspective, supporters take the right to reason.The US Congress governs the world, and should not control the government’s savings.From a realistic perspective, the losses caused by the joint civilians should be considered.If the government defaults, it will be compensated.This is very common in the United States.It’s not difficult to patch.
Taking this trivial matter to deny DOGE reform is suspected of being exaggerated.Take advantage of the issue and launch an alternative version of the so-called “moderate reform”.However, the so-called “moderate version” is nothing more than a cliché on paper.
It is the “moderate reform” that has repeatedly failed for decades that exhausted the patience of the American people that has given up the space for radical DOGE to go online.
Reducing government spending and improving government efficiency has been the “political correctness” in the American political arena for many years.A gentle cost reduction and efficiency increase plan, one after another, has no effect at all.Some even had a very bad reaction.
President Jimmy Carter, a “saint-level” good man in the American political arena, carried out a vigorous reform of the federal civil service assessment system.He hopes that the performance appraisal of civil servants will be more fair and just to promote the work efficiency of civil servants.To this end, Carter abolished the Pendleton Act, which had been enforced for nearly a century, and split the original committee into three.
Decentralization of power is conducive to justice and seems reasonable.However, the only result of this reform is the addition of 9,800 “senior civil servants” positions.With this little bit of incense, this good-looking man who performed very poorly during his tenure was very active after retirement.His reputation is getting higher and higher, and he lives with a high and noble demeanor.Moderate does have mild benefits, but it has nothing to do with the federal government’s efficiency improvement.
“Improving government efficiency” has always been the right nonsense.The essence of government finance is to spend other people’s money and do everyone’s business.The trading is not driven by enough profits and cannot be efficient.They have found profit-driven themselves, and they have efficiency, but not the kind that the public wants.
There have been many attempts to moderate shrinkage and layoffs, and the two Republican presidents Reagan and Nixon have worked particularly hard.However, their efforts simply pressed the pause button.The short-term efficacy of the medicine cannot prevent the US federal government from rising uncontrollably.
▲The White House’s US President’s Office (Photo/Video Screenshot)
Attrition of staff, the efficacy of the medicine is limited.Increase efficiency and make a cake to satisfy your hunger.Can there be new plans for “moderate reform”?The famous scholar and bureaucrat Fukuyama proposed his plan.He believes that the federal government is not that there are too many employees, but that there are too few.Large amounts of outsourcing, rather than direct handling by federal employees, affects efficiency.Therefore, DOGE should abolish outsourcing and increase federal employees.
Jimmy Carter burst into tears when he saw it – he has done so much outsourcing, isn’t it because 9,800 senior positions are not enough to inspire civil servants to serve the people wholeheartedly?No foreign monks can recite scriptures well, can they still recite them by domestic ones?
Fukuyama also proposed very “scholarly” that not only should people be added, but also to expand power.Increase the discretion of grassroots civil servants.Genius idea of giving people the power to save federal spending.Mr. Fukuyama is worthy of being the best among scholars and the highest academic cross-border talent among officials.His starting point may be good, but it is best not to set out.
DOGE is indeed not gentle, because the establishment of the two parties has exhausted “gentle” methods for many years and has turned into a boiling frog in warm water, which is close to the boiling point.
In fact, although DOGE is radical, its overall idea is correct.The core of DOGE reform is not to lay off people and reduce the number of non-essential functions of the government.
“Limited Government” is the foundation of the United States’ constitution, and the preamble to the Constitution clearly states:
In order to establish good alliances, establish justice, protect national security, protect common ground, and promote public benefits, our people and future generations have made this constitution specially formulated for the United States of America.
The subject is “I am the whole nation” and is not a great vow to contribute to the whole world and all mankind.
Why does the United States Agency for International Development, which has spent money on 130 countries and regions around the world, exist?Indeed, in the huge list of UNDP projects, apart from some weird projects, many are projects that do good deeds and do good deeds.
Fighting Ebola virus in Africa, engaging in organic agriculture in Thailand, and investing in Liberian small and medium-sized enterprises to “feed the future” are all undeniable good things.But how much does this have to do with the “people of our nation”?Is it the responsibility that the US government should perform?
A limited government, performs its duties entrusted by the Constitution, and only tries to do its duty.If you find a charity project to do good things and leave it to the government, it is almost deceptive.The difficulty of persuading the public to agree to spend 10 billion in the government budget to run charity is far less difficult than convincing him to pay out of his own pocket.This is not charity, but intentional or unintentional fraud.
The government is not a charity because the government naturally does not have charitable attributes.The moral foundation of charity is entirely out of voluntary dedication, and government taxes are forced to be collected by violent institutions.Who is the most important thing?
The ethical value is suspicious, and the performance value is even more suspicious.
Picture/Tiuzhun Creative
The biggest argument for the defense of the United States Agency for International Development is that these charitable projects have improved the United States’ local image and are the “public benefit” mentioned by the Constitution.However, do these “public benefits” have quantitative standard codes?Perhaps the beneficiaries of Liberia know how to be grateful, but is this so-called “public benefit” more important than the “public benefit” that improves US national defense, improves US judicial level, and maintains fiscal security?
It is understandable that bureaucrats are keen on this. This kind of remote charity has a good reputation, spends a lot of money, and its performance standards are vague and difficult to verify. Who doesn’t love it?This is a “responsibilities” they are willing to assume, but not the “responsibilities” that the US government should assume.
If any department is not good, the more you have to invest money, this is a unique privilege of the government.Therefore, with the high attention of previous governments, the growth of education expenditure has always ranked high in the cabinet sector.
In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. government’s spending on education, employment and social services increased by 50% year-on-year, far exceeding the 9% increase in defense spending.As the youngest and smallest cabinet department of the federal government, the U.S. Department of Education has become a rising star of the gold-swalking beast.
The Ministry of Education’s ascension path is very representative.The federal government’s institutions are inflated, spending increases, and inefficient, and thus goes out of control.Is it irresponsible to “close the Ministry of Education” or is it irresponsible to set up a name to expand government responsibilities?
DOGE is by no means perfect, and many issues can be discussed.It is difficult to judge how far Musk can go.The United States has a huge interest community with more than 20 trillion US dollars in fiscal spending every year, and it contains dirt and accumulated problems, so it requires courage to face it.But courage alone is not enough.Elon Musk’s political journey is destined to be bumpy, and failure is not surprising.
Regardless of success or failure, DOGE’s strong launch is enough to show that the problems of the US federal fiscal system have reached an unavoidable level.This is an unquestionable fact and a consensus among the American people.But the problem may not reach its worst.The US federal administrative system has no burden of “upper and down alignment”.
Institutional reforms at the federal level are less constrained by the lower state levels and have higher fault tolerance.DOGE tried it out loud, what’s wrong?The federal government has a crisis of “shutdown” and there is no need to suffer from the delusion of “big government” dependence.
▲DOGE’s official website (photo/network)
Ridiculously, some DOGE opponents are already eager to declare their failure.The accusation of “I haven’t saved money, where have I saved money?” is particularly ridiculous.DOGE is only more than a month away from its official establishment. The first fiscal season is less than yet, and there is no formal final settlement yet. Of course, “no money savings.”After three months of marriage, I didn’t get pregnant, so I said that I was infertile and I definitely couldn’t make a mistake.Is this kind of “criticism” meaningful?
What’s even more ridiculous is that on the one hand, DOGE’s “no money saving” and on the other hand, the US Agency for International Development’s annual budget expenditure was grandly mourned.Where did the $40 billion go?Saving hundreds of billions a month is quite ignorant of saying “not saving money”.
