You can't make a living moving money from one pocket to another. Once the government is involved, it's costing you money just to do that.
By all means, let's reduce wasteful spending, stop growing an inefficient welfare state, and pay for the services we actually use.
Why? How can it be a "wasteful spending" if it's going to Americans? By your logic, there's no net loss in that equation. Where's the "waste"? If we're paying for stuff we aren't actually using, it's all good as long as we're buying it from ouselves, right?
On the next, spending isn't wasteful because it cannot happen or destroys money in existence. Economy does not consist in the avoidance of all spending, nor is it a global zero sum constraint. It consists in moving resources where they do the most good. When instead one spends on indifferent non-necessities, one gives up the gains available from more prudent use of the same resources.
I can give chapter and verse examples taken from the contrast between Bush and Fed approved items from last year and what the Dems have been doing since, core treasury operations excepted. Here is a hint - the banks are repaying everything invested in them with interest and giant positive externalities to the whole economy, while we will be lucky to see 25% of the sums spent on the auto companies again. That doesn't mean the latter was destroyed, it means it was given as an indirect handout to UAW members as expensive welfare, to support men earning salaries several times the national average without having produced that much in value themselves.
If we just wanted to give away money to support those directly hurt by the smash, there are harder and more deserving cases than UAW workers. If we care about the maximum impact and about actual return on the investment, then the financial sector stuff was vastly superior. The first did not add net value compared to its debt costs, the second certainly did.