are we cutting quickly, deeply, and exactly enough?

Interesting discussion at this post on Instapundit regarding whether the cutting of USAID is going as quickly and as thoroughly as it could. Some commenters had interesting sentiments (lightly edited for style):

1.

This is almost certainly just a first pass. The ones shut down were obviously scams or doing things not consistent with this administration's policies. The 1,000 that are left might be legitimate—spending money abroad CAN be in our national interest. Moving the remaining active programs under State means they will be subject to the direct review, and ongoing authority, of the secretary of state and his minions, who can decide at any time whether to modify or terminate them.

Remember that the House of Fraud has been created, expanded, modified, and tweaked over generations of bureaucrats, always with an eye to keeping things hidden from public knowledge and examination. It will take time to root [those things] out. And while the daily "Found Another One"-type headlines are refreshing and satisfying to those of us who voted for this, it doesn't mean that each new discovery has to be fixed the next day [You've got only two years! —ed.]. We should let the people working on the projects have enough time to figure out what the best fix is in each case, and how to make the fix as permanent as possible.

2.

Even if Trump and Elon manage to cut the federal government in half, a single Democrat administration would grow it all back. The people saying "we need a scalpel, not a chainsaw" fail to grasp the magnitude of the problem: it's not a human body—it's a redwood forest. Anything less than a wildfire will barely make a dent.