Now just think about that for a minute. What she is saying is that reducing spending is not the goal; saving $50B from eliminating waste is insufficient. She wants actual cuts to services, regardless of what the final cost is. If you could figure out how to deliver twice as much Welfare for the cost of a shiny nickelr, she would not accept that. Because her goal is not deficit reduction; it is government reduction.
Later in the broadcast she switched her complaint to be about the uncertain nature of such savings, so the honesty didn't last long. But it was nice of her to let the mask slip for a moment.