Also, NASA isn't mind-bogglingly inefficient. Citation needed, I guess. Besides, their budget is a puny 0.5% of the federal budget, compared to 1% back in 1990. The return on science spending is, as far as I know, typically pretty good in the US.
Your own links show NASA at a fairly flat budget level, not in austerity with cuts.
I neither trust nor agree with Krugman's definition of austerity, nor do I see how to square his definition with budgets like [1] that show growth almost across the board.
As for NASA's inefficiency, an efficient department would not be able to purchase private space services from SpaceX for a fraction of what they can do themselves. (As for the argument that SpaceX can and did just build on NASA's work... so can NASA. They ought to be able to do even better than a third party building on their stuff, no?)
1. NASA's budget has been cut every year since 1998, as a fraction of the federal budget, although their budget in dollars has increased[1].
2. Krugman doesn't count some expenditures, such as social security, unemployment benefits and a number of other items. He argues on his blog why this paints a more accurate picture. (Search for "Austerity")
3. SpaceX is an exceptional startup and NASA has been in business since the 60s. A typical web startup can outpace IBM and Microsoft too. It's better to compare NASA's inefficiency with other big research labs.
NASA's budget has been cut every year since 1998, as a fraction of the federal budget
The fact that the federal government's budget grows like a cancer does not mean that NASA's budget is austere, nor does it mean that NASA should get more.
It's simply absurd to claim that your budget has been "cut" when it has actually been increased, even in real terms. Your argument sounds like the Bugs Bunny cartoon "Racketeer Rabbit", where they're counting the loot: "One for you; one for me. Two for you; one, two for me". Somebody else getting money does not mean that you're entitled to additional money.
SpaceX is an exceptional startup and NASA has been in business since the 60s. A typical web startup can outpace IBM and Microsoft too.
The online conclusion I can see to draw from this is that NASA should be wholly disbanded. We'll create a new one, since even a typical startup should be able to outpace the old-time behemoths.
On the first part, I agree, NASA's budget is basically constant in real terms over the past 2 decades or so. The bigger problem imo is not the total amount of money, but all the strings it's come attached with, and in particular constantly-changing strings. If NASA got $17 billion and the freedom to decide how it should be best used to advance scientific goals, that would be one thing, but instead every President and Congress has their own pet ideas about what NASA should do with the money, and so it ends up getting allocated to a rotating parade of prestige projects that end up going nowhere.
On the latter point, I don't see NASA as really less efficient when they're given freedom over designs. They have some pretty impressive low-cost-satellite programs that teams of scientists have put together out of small bits of discretionary funds. And while StartX is impressive for a private company, I think it'll be some time before they're doing NASA-level work. For example, none of the private sector companies seem to be even attempting scientifically useful things like space telescopes, Mars rovers, or interplanetary probes, even though there is no technological barrier to doing those (they're doable with literally decades-old technology).
On #2, this is also including all levels of government, while the comment you're replying to links a Wikipedia article on the federal budget. The U.S. federal government budget has not been declining, but state and local budgets have been declining sharply, so you get pretty different results depending on what levels you look at.
Total government spending in the US doubled from 1998 to 2011.
While the US economy only increased by 1/3, and population only increased by roughly 15%.
Why would you need twice the government spending for 15% more people? We had 270 million people in 1998, and now have 312x million.
Total government expenditures (local + state + federal) in the US came to over $7 trillion in 2011 (counting the deficit spending). Out of an economy that is close to $16 trillion. Under absolutely no scenario is that austerity, it's the greatest spending binge in world history.
To put it another way, our government system spends more than the combined economies of Germany + France + Britain are worth.
If that's austerity, then the 1990s were hyper austerity by comparison. Somehow we managed to have a government that was more functional then than the one we have now.
Well, that's how Krugman would like to justify it. But, on the other hand, when it comes to politics, Krugman is a complete ass. (and I think I can say that in a completely objective manner)
There is no reasonable definition of austerity that can be satisfied in these conditions. The US (and various European govt's that Krugman has been blathering about) were already spending a lot of money. For the most part (a few very limited examples exist), their spending has kept pace with, and generally even exceeded, inflation.
When the government is taking at least as much of the country's pie as it always had, and generally even a growing share, it is simply absurd to call that austerity.
Also, NASA isn't mind-bogglingly inefficient. Citation needed, I guess. Besides, their budget is a puny 0.5% of the federal budget, compared to 1% back in 1990. The return on science spending is, as far as I know, typically pretty good in the US.
The NASA budget outline can be found here: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html. And the complete 2012 budget report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516675main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates...
It all looks pretty reasonable to me.