Yep, a good one. That's why she (maybe he) had been headstrong despite the controversy. Anyway, it has a psychological impact for taxpayers. "Look, we spent Trillion dollars of your money and we want you to see that we are making the best we can". Remember Paulson and Bernanke said "Fed will use all tools at its disposal" to send signal that we are doing our best. We aren't standing and watch; we're acting, leading... I guess Obama want to have that impression too. Tapping on the shoulder and say "Dear taxpayers, back to work and produce".
One F-22 fighter costs upwards of $150M so shutting down that program was a good decision. Now instead of giving Pakistan 10s of billions in aid which goes to Swiss bank accounts of big wigs, US should bluntly tell them to rein in 'Terrorism and Talibian' or they will be bombed into the 18th century civilization. US has the capability to 'defang' Pakistan of its nukes and then do whatever. Calling boys back home from Afganistan will be another $50B a year of savings. $100M is a joke!
ummm... your plan won't work, as it's not possible to bomb a country into the future; and Pakistan is currently in the 4th century BC.
Irony is relative to the people reading it. It also takes years to muster. clue(less) - "if it is all over the places..."