Analyzing that $100 Million

My college buddy Phil Rucker, now a reporter at the Washington Post, has a good story up that includes reporting that crystallizes the way I feel about the $100 million President Obama is cutting in spending:

"You're cherry-picking the base of the tree on stuff that is not innovative," said Paul C. Light, a scholar of federal bureaucracy at New York University. "Purchasing in bulk? Wow, that's a bold idea! Teleconferencing? Holy moly! None of this stuff is the kind of bold sweep you're hoping Obama will bring to the management of government."

Isabel V. Sawhill, a Clinton administration budget official who directs the Budgeting for National Priorities project at the Brookings Institution, said she feared the cuts would be "lampooned" on late-night talk shows.

"I'm not sure I thought it was a good step towards convincing people that he cares about fiscal responsibility," she said.

The things that are being cut are things that, well, it boggles the mind that they haven't been eliminated already. The Education Department has an education attache in Paris? Created by the Bush administration? The Department of Homeland Security hasn't found time SINCE ITS CREATION to institute a system for buying in bulk and isn't using department-wide purchase orders for 94 PERCENT OF ORDERS? Really?