I don't disagree, but when you talk about reducing federal headcount you are also talking about reducing contracting support that work below those feds and reducing regulatory oversight (which may not be a bad thing). So you will essentially be moving those people from employment to the unemployment rolls. And due to the seniority system, it normally affects the youngest workers who can ill afford to be laid off. The savings, at least in the short run, may not be as great as we think.
A better approach would be to furlough workers with a time phase draw down in some areas.
Cutting government salaries and benefits is a major part of the deficit ocean.
Per information in
another thread this morning "Federal workers would face a freeze on "federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-Defense agencies for three years," saving $15.1 billion. Pentagon civilians would take the same hit, for a $5.3 billion savings." and "The federal workforce would be cut by 10 percent, about 200,000 people, by hiring only two workers for every three who leave federal service. That would save $13.2 billion."
So, all told, those measures would save about $35 Billion (a year, I assume). Yes, a good chunk of money, but given that our annual deficit has been around $1.8 Trillion it's a drop in the ocean rather than a major one ... only about 2%.
Even Defense spending is a small piece of the pie. The only real way to cut the deficit and debt, given where we're going in the next several decades, is going to be to raise taxes in a major way, or take a scythe to the big entitlement programs (major reductions and means testing for Social Security, cuts and stepped up counter-fraud enforcement for Medicare and Medicaid).