While I'm not for it and think smarter cuts can be made- As usual Tyson misses the mark due to his own politics. If you go to the cheaper less convenient gas station and save $.03 a gallon it's not a big savings for most. Let's say $1 a week, $52 a year. Cut your car insurance rate, maybe another $100 a year. Refinance a loan, maybe $600 a year. Free coffee vs Starbucks, stop buying soda etc. cut alchohol back, Start buying store brands, cut the cable- all very small expenses compared to your budget. Let's say you do all that and save $2k a year- really not a lot but still a bit. Alone that's $20,000 in your pocket in ten years. But! What if you invest it or put it in a 401? With compound interest you could more than double that. $20k alone will pay off a car, or allow someone who can only afford a $20k loan to buy a $40k car. In other words- cutting small expenses is like... this thing called budgeting.
It's somewhat an apt analogy. The odds of a morbidly obese person losing and keeping off significant weight are pretty slim to start. But with extreme dedication an sacrifice (aka suffering by not having what they want) most can do it. But each of us is in that obese persons body and to "trim the fat" of the budget would need to sacrifice and dedicate to the cause. Further- this analogy proposes eliminating PBS. A morbidly obese person shouldn't switch to diet cola, they should cut all liquid calories completely as well as 99% of non essential for survival nutrition. That said- if you're trying to lose weight a more subtle approach has a better chance to work. If you "punish" yourself there's more chance you won't be able to stick to it, and extreme changes quickly cause great upset. Small gradual changes over time are sustainable and cause less shock. Very slight changes like a few less calories here and there (no cheese on a burger, etc.) most people will make changes over time.
I would love to hear the great Tysons proposal...