Written by: Guan Buyu, source: Glacier Sixianghao

The federal "stop" and "close the door" at any time is the "daily crisis" of the United States. 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 budget cannot be eliminated, and the federal government announced the "closed".

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 national defense, justice, and finance operate as usual. The court still has to open the door and taxes will not stop.

So, 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 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 Clinton's "suspension" 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 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.

Photo/video screenshot

The United States has established its country on the principle of "limited" and still cannot escape the "big" trap. 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.

Until D led by Elon MuskThe OGE (US Department of Efficiency) team broke into the "Porcelain Store" in Washington and finally got serious.

Since DOGE was officially established on January 20, the Chief Diversified Officials Executive Committee (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 federal weight loss surgery in the United States has undoubtedly caused huge controversy.

Do 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 many opinions against DOGE, the most funny one is "not obtained federal authorization." If the "federal" refers to civil servants and bureaucrats, you can imagine 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 member of the federal government. DOGE does not require their authorization.

Another reason for accusing DOGE of overtaking his authority is that he 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 others, 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 issues, 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 terms of procedure. DOGE was established based on Executive Order No. 14158 signed on the first day of Trump's office on January 20, 2025.The formal department of the Presidential Office of Administration. 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 the United States. 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.

Whether Roosevelt did it and Obama did it, Trump could not do it? Because Trump is a "bad person" and a "bad president", he has to develop another set of "federal authorization", which is obviously wrong.

So, we can be dissatisfied with DOGE's reform, but accusing DOGE of "not receiving federal authorization" is based on no basis, neither legal basis nor factual basis for historical practices.

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 chosen by Harvard are not because of how reliable Harvard is, but because Harvard’s left-wing position will not favor Trump, so it is more convincing.

In this poll, there are two items involving DOGE. "Find and eliminate fraud and waste in 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 Americans also saw the trick.

"Reducing the expenditure 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 concern.

▲Trump's different public approval ratings and opposition rates (photo/network)

The US's doubts are not that these "allocated expenditures" do not contain fraud and waste, but that the authority to adjust the budget is attributable to the right to adjust the budget. 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: "Direct, indirect, import and goods tax are stipulated to repay national debts and provide common defense and public welfare of the United States, but all indirect, import and goods tax should be unified nationwide.1”.

The US Congress’s power to oversee budgets is derived from the appropriation rights. In layman's terms, Congress has the right to supervise whether the grants given are dedicated. In the process, it is to propose a budget proposal to ask Congress for money, Congress adds and reduces, and brings out 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 appropriations.

From this process, it can be seen 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 budget finance is not exclusive to Congress. There has always been an internal audit, which does not hinder Congress's supervision of budget use. Therefore, after DOGE obtained the president's administrative authorization, he went to the Treasury Department to check the accounts without overturning his authority. This is not a dispute between the Treasury and DOGE, but a Treasury against the president's executive power. The U.S. Constitution does not give the Treasury Department the independent status of responsibility to Congress, and the Treasury Department is undisputedly an administrative branch under the jurisdiction of the president.

If you really want to fight the lawsuit to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Treasury Department is extremely likely to lose the case. Once you lose the case, you will be even more passive. Therefore, the Treasury Department finally chose to "subjugate". The U.S. Treasury itself has no confidence to confront the end, and those who oppose DOGE have to make a statement. It is good intentions and very reluctant.

Pu/TuChong Creative

DOGE's existing actions are really controversial. These budgets involved in departmental severance and shrinking functions are approved by Congress. Congress gives money, does it have the right not to spend it?

Proponents believe that the right to grant the budget should not and cannot prevent saving money. There are many precedents for institutions to adjust and directly cut budgets. DOGE is nothing more than a big deal, and the nature is not different.

An opponents believe that many of these budgets have been implemented to the stage of business contracts, and suddenly cutting them will cause private losses. This is also based on evidence. For example, the International Development Agency, which was attacked this time, had a $50 million budget to purchase American agricultural products, but was cut by DOGE, and the seller suffered losses.

Legal perspective, supporters are in charge. The US Congress controls the heavens and the earth, and should not be responsible for saving expenses. In reality, the joint private losses should be considered. Breach of contract, you should lose money. This is very common in the United States. It is not difficult to patch.

The denial of DOGE reform by grasping this trivial matter is suspected of being too outspoken. Taking advantage of the topic, we will launch an alternative version of the so-called "moderate reform". However, the so-called "moderate version" is just a cliché of paper talk.

It is the "moderate reform" that has been repeatedly defeated for decades that exhausted the patience of the American people, and the space for radical DOGE to be launched.

Reducing spending and improving efficiency is the "correct" 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 assessment 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.

Divide rights is conducive to fairness 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. Gentle does have mild benefits, but it has nothing to do with federal efficiency improvement.

"Improving efficiency" is always the right nonsense. The essence of 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 also been many attempts to reduce and lay off employees, 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 fiscal expenditure from rising uncontrollably.

▲The White House’s US Presidential Office (photo/video screenshot)

Attributive staff, limited efficacy. 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 does not have too many employees, but 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 non-essential functions.

"Limited" is the constitution of the United StatesThe foundation of the Constitution is clearly stated in the beginning of the preamble of the Constitution:

We have united our people, in order to establish good alliances, establish justice, protect national security, protect common people, and promote public benefits, so that we and future generations can enjoy the blessing of freedom, we have specially formulated this constitution for the United States of America.

The subject is "I unite the whole world", not a great vow to contribute to the whole world and all mankind.

130 Why does the United States Agency for International Development, which has spent money around the region, 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 the 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 "our unity of the masses"? Is it the responsibility that the United States should perform?

Limited, just perform the duties conferred by the Constitution and do your duty. If you find a good charity project and leave it to you, it is almost deceptive. Convincing the public to agree to spend 10 billion is far less difficult to budget for charity than convincing him to pay out of his own pocket. This is not charity, but intentional or unintentional fraud.

It is not a charitable organization because it naturally does not have charitable attributes. The moral basis of charity is entirely out of voluntary dedication, and taxes are forced to be collected by violent institutions. Who is the most important thing?

Ethical value is suspicious, and performance value is even more suspicious.

Pu/Tuzhun Creativity

The biggest argument for the US Agency for International Development's defense is that these charitable projects have improved the image of the United States in the local area 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?

The bureaucrats are keen on this, and who doesn’t love this kind of remote charity, has a good reputation, spends a lot of money, has a vague performance standards and is difficult to verify. This is a "responsibilities" they are willing to assume, but not the "responsibilities" that the United States should assume.

Which department is not good, the more you have to invest money, this is a unique privilege. Therefore, with the highest attention of previous generations, the growth of education expenditure has always been ranked high in the cabinet department.

In fiscal year 2024, U.S. education, employment and social services expenditure increased by 50% year-on-year, far exceeding the 9% increase in defense expenditure. 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-swallowing beast.

The Ministry of Education’s ascension path is very representative. The federal institutions have expanded, increased spending, and inefficiency, and thus have gone out of control. Is it irresponsible to "close the Ministry of Education" or to set up a clever name to expand the responsibilities?

DOGE is by no means perfect, 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.

No matter whether it succeeds or fails, 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 Americans. But the problem may not reach its worst. The US federal administrative system has no burden of "upper and down alignment".

Institutional reform at the federal level is less constrained by the lower state level and has a higher fault tolerance rate. DOGE tried it out loud, what's wrong? The federal "shutdown" crisis is not the sky and the earth is sinking, and there is no need to have the delusion of "major" dependence.

▲DOGE's official website (photo/network)

What's ridiculous is that some DOGE opponents are already eager to announce 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 issued a grand funeral for the annual budget expenditure of US$40 billion. Where did the $40 billion go? Saving hundreds of billions a month is quite ignorant of saying "not saving money".