The percentage itself doesn't make a difference to me; I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every federal or state level agency, program, initiative, whatever, has 6-7%, or double that, of bloat that can be trimmed without affecting performance of the core mission.
However.
We have seen time and time and time and time again that Rs are uniquely interested in breaking government so that it can be said to be broken (so that, magically, (1) it can either be scrapped altogether, or replaced/supplemented in whole or in part by favored private interests, or (2) it functions only in favored ways).
And so my concern would be those things that represent a fraction of even the portion of the budget to be cut, but where the cut would have a dramatic, adverse effect on the core mission (in ways that serve favored people/interests).
For (silly) example, cameras themselves are certainly less than 6-7% of a law enforcement agency's budget. But ceasing to procure cameras would dramatically and adversely affect a law enforcement agency's ability to perform its core mission. And so cutting cameras out of the budget would weaken law enforcement (and result, magically, in something like procuring new cameras from favored vendors, or simply law enforcement deciding to not deploy the scarce cameras it has to surveil white supremacists in the expansive, remote West).
