Elimination of aid for family planning, end of subsidies to public radio and television, accused of being a bastion of left-wing activism, and elimination of 1.5 billion dollars (1.4 billion euros) in subsidies to non-governmental international organizations. authorized by Congress: Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, and his partner, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, gave a preview of their plans to cut federal spending.
In a long column published on Wednesday, November 20 in the Wall Street JournalThey deliver their methodical speech to explain how they intend to slim down the federal State, as President-elect Donald Trump asked them to do, naming them at the head of a ministry of “government efficiency.”
The text reveals a thoughtful plan of attack, based on the latest jurisprudence of the Supreme Court favorable to a minimal State. Above all, it aims to avoid going through Congress, which has, in theory, most powers over the federal budget. “Our compass for reform will be the United States Constitution, with emphasis on two important Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s term”write the two businessmen, citing two decisions that have severely limited the power of federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Teleworking of officials on the viewer
The Court’s conservative justices have limited the agencies’ ability to adapt their rules to changes in the world (for example, global warming, not foreseen when the EPA was created in the early 1970s) and to interpret their own rules. regulations on behalf of the federal government. courts. “These decisions suggest that many current federal regulations exceed the authority granted by Congress under the law.”accuses MM. Musk and Ramaswamy, who plan to quickly present a list of abusive regulations “to President Trump, who may, by decree, immediately suspend your request and begin the review and cancellation process”.
The measure will reduce bureaucracy and allow the number of federal officials to be reduced. “The number of federal employees to be eliminated must be at least proportional to the number of federal regulations canceled”they write. Both men recognize that federal employee status should protect “against political reprisals” but they argue that “the law authorizes “staff reductions” that are not directed at specific employees”.
You have 50.18% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
