Meg Whitman Quotes

I think there are several departments we could completely get rid of, and we wouldn't miss it.

Every government program needs to be more efficient. Instead of pointing out how other programs can tighten their belts, every program administrator must look inward to save money.

From a productivity standpoint, you're supposed to reduce headcount on par with declining revenue. If you believe the environment isn't going to improve, you should take a bigger cut to get in front of the problems.

It is time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government.

But I don't want massive layoffs of anyone - public or private. We are planning on shrinking government through attrition and reform, not through random pink slips.

Prune - prune businesses, products, activities, people. Do it annually.

At a time when we're having to take such difficult decisions about how to cut back without damaging the things that matter the most, we should strain every sinew to cut error, waste and fraud.

From cutting back on state contracts to reducing the number of state cars, We're making state government smaller, smarter, more efficient, and more accountable.

There are certainly delays in this year's agreed program, and we must quickly catch up. Let's not kid ourselves, there is still big waste in the public sector, and it must stop.

We do as much harm holding onto programs and people past their natural life span as we do when we employ massive organizational air strikes. However, destroying comes at the end of life's cycle, not as a first response.

The only way to make budget cuts is to bring down force structure.

As far as cutting jobs, you could cut whole agencies out of the federal government and not miss them.

We cannot afford idleness, waste or inefficiency.

Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.

When businesses face tough times, one of the first items they cut is overhead expenses. The government should do the same.

We will downsize the government, motivate excess employees to become entrepreneurs, and increase the pay of a lean and mean bureaucracy.

What you don't do, if you're an adult, is decide that you're going to budget things through a sequester. What does that word have to do with budgeting? It's like if you have a family budget and go, 'We really don't know what to take out economically from the budget, so we're going to whack out protein for this week.'

I have a record as governor. I have a record of cutting spending. And I talked yesterday not only about we ought to cut spending, I talked about how we've cut spending in Mississippi and how if you did the same things in the federal government, you would save tens of billions of dollars a year.

We held the team together for as long as possible and then sent all except the most critical personnel home.

Things are bad in 2001 at Yahoo. There's been layoffs, restructuring, lots of people left.

If we can't find cuts in the defense budget, we're not looking carefully enough.

I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

Instead of raising taxes as some would insist, we need to reduce waste and inefficiency in government.

We have got a - we've got a good federal work force, but we have too many people, and we're paying them too much money.

Curtailment of expense could be effected only on the principle that as the government did nothing well, it might as well do nothing.