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.
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.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA