NOTE TO STUDENTS: This is a challenging commentary. But well worth understanding what Vivek and Elon plan to do with DOGE. They will be unpaid advisors. Recommendations will go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) where the director (who will be appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress) will implement the recommendations as he sees fit. Others will go to Congress.  Follow the news in 2025. Consider following the DOGE account on X as Musk and Ramaswamy have said they will be transparent and update the American public on their progress.

1. The purpose of an editorial/commentary is to explain, persuade, warn, criticize, entertain, praise or answer. What do you think is the purpose of Elon and Vivek's commentary? Explain your answer.

2. What is the purpose of DOGE? (see para. 3)

3. What 3 major types of federal government reform will Musk and Ramaswamy target? (see para. 4)

4. a) What did the Supreme Court rulings on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency and Loper Bright v. Raimondo do?
b) How will DOGE use the two Supreme Court rulings to carry out their goals? (see para. 7)

5. How do Musk and Ramaswamy address/refute critics who:

1. allege executive overreach (see para. 8)
2. question how much federal spending DOGE can cut through executive action alone (see para. 11)
3. claim DOGE can't meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink (para. 12)

6. What is your reaction to each of the following points made by Musk and Ramaswamy in the article?

1. 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. This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. (para. 1-2)
2. 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 And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so. (para. 8)
3. 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. (para. 9)
4. 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. (para. 10)