If the program being cut is valuable, I would say absolutely. Ignoring that this website is obviously going to have massive bias, a huge amount of the savings listed are for programs I would generally support: Health services, health research, USAID (we saved a billion dollars on "polio immunization," yay), environmental research, education, etc. Maybe the specific contracts cut were wasteful, but they certainly don't provide enough information to determine that and I'm not going to assume the cuts were good because "money saved."
Also, the savings are pretty minor overall. If we trust the website, we get $1.3k saved per taxpayer. The vast majority of the programs cut would have to be completely useless for me to think it is worth it to save $1.3k.
Also, "waste" doesn't have a singular definition: a contract with Honeywell (just picking a big government contractor at random) with the DOD/DOW to develop a new weapon could easily be seen as wasteful by one taxpayer, while another could see a different contract with Honeywell with the DOE or EPA to develop green energy tech as equally valid waste. The solution to this isn't to have one person run roughshod over already-signed contracts and commitments; the fix is for Congress either to not enter into them in the first place, or to use the CRA to override an agency's decision.
Also, the savings are pretty minor overall. If we trust the website, we get $1.3k saved per taxpayer. The vast majority of the programs cut would have to be completely useless for me to think it is worth it to save $1.3k.