BTW I'm not American, but have followed NASA projects for many, many years, and they almost always give me some greater hope for the future of mankind (not to mention admiration for the science and engineering people behind the scenes).
I was talking about making sure all public money is used for public benefit and not for entertainment as the OP suggested, because if you're taking money from someone with force "for their benefit", you better not waste it. I don't think what NASA does is wrong, btw.
Not an American as well.
Personally, I get nothing from spectator sports, “the great” artists, Shakespeare, opera, nor the majority [0] of musicians.
But public funding for soccer or baseball or the Olympics, renaissance art galleries, theatre, and music… these things make most people happy. I don’t empathise with the emotional responses of their respective audiences, but I can acknowledge that to the average Joe, a football is much more than a plastic substitute for an inflated pig bladder. I assume it’s exciting to them in the same way that seeing Chris Hadfield singing in actual space is to me.
I don’t get why government funds these things, at least not at a visceral gut level, but the fact that they fund these things indicates that the public has a decent level of support for public funding of entertainment.
[0] with the occasional exception.
I have no way to tell how fair that claim is, but I’m sure someone here has either been into space or worked closely enough with NASA to comment.
If that’s true, the “waste” is also the advertising that gets the funding for the things which matter. And that’s even ignoring the possibility that the manned missions do the things which can’t be automated.