I think twenty's point (and the one I would make) is this:
There is a lost opportunity cost here. While everyone is focused on this exercise, with the big names attached, you lose time and focus on the big things that will really make a difference. Also, these govt efficiency projects occur every so often in a misguided attempt to get a free lunch--to somehow create a material reduction in fed spending without touching our sacred cows.
In the meantime, the sacred cows continue to fatten, become more entrenched, and people are lulled into a false sense of confidence we can fix the problem with these projects. I'd suggest we need someone to play the long game, here, with the electorate--that is, it would be great if somoene trustworthy would spend the next four years talking about our actuarial problems, the costs of healthcare for the elderly, etc. and prime the pump. Clinton and Obama tried some of this, but I think they did it too quickly, without priming the pump--we need to educate the populace (if we are still assuming that kind of thing works or is possible--I'm skeptical).
I find this similar (but not exactly so) to the people I talk to in K-12 education, who think they can spend all their time, effort, and political capital on anti-racism efforts in high schools that make minorities feel better about their academic deficiencies and try to push them into honors and AP classes. The smart ones will admit that the real effort needs to be made at ages 0-10, but that they "have to do something" and this is the project they are currently doing. When you push back and tell them there is a cost to their "doing something"--that it isn't a free lunch--they just throw up their hands and say "how could it hurt?"