Devil’s advocate position here: The Gerald Ford class of carriers will utilize linear magnetic accelerators instead of steam catapults to launch planes. As far as I’m aware, these would be the biggest practical and operational “mass drivers” yet designed, and the design principles ironed out therein could prove useful in areas such as asteroid and lunar mining and even space-launch itself.
Also, a big part of the rationale for designing the Ford class is lowering staffing needs. Replacing the hugely complex and maintenance-intensive steam systems with electrical ones, for instance, will mean that you need a lot fewer people to operate those systems. Supposedly, such carriers will be a lot cheaper to actually run.
/end aviation geek

That said, I agree that US military spending is largely industry pork. We could cut our defense budget in half and still have the most powerful military on earth. Imagine what NASA could do with just one quarter of the military’s budget? We’d have moon colonies and nuclear-powered, crewed outer-solar-system spacecraft inside of a decade, I betcha.

The fundamental problem is that there is NO money left. Do we need another aircraft carrier (Chris #22)? Probably not, and it’s reasonable to question it. But from a spending vs. benefit, it’s arguably a better return on investment than NASA gives.

Most definitely, because the USA is under threat of invasion every week!

Oh, wait, that’s wrong. The continental USA has never been under threat of invasion. Even at the height of WWII, there was never any real threat of invasion.

Your contention that buying, equipping and staffing yet another aircraft carrier gives a better return than NASA (say, MSL, for instance) is just so much hot air. An aircraft carrier will pretty much never give you new knowledge (except perhaps in the rather specialised field of how to operate an aircraft carrier).

MSL overrun of $1 billion? Webb overruns several times that? Stern was publicly against these things. Now he wants more money. Isn’t it time for space science to feel a little of the budgetary pain after wasting all of this money?

Misjudging the cost of something that has never been made before is not the same thing as wasting money, unless you consider the thing being made to not be worth it.

Do you have any evidence that these budget overruns are the latter and not the former?

And only to them? No collateral damage to ordinary people who thought they were being sensible?

Oh, don’t even get me started on McConnell, that #*$&%^@! I honestly believe that he needs to be tried for treason. Mr. “Our-number-one-objective-is-to-make-Obama-a-one-term-president”. Gosh, how silly of me – somewhere I got this crazy idea that your number one objective was supposed to be doing your goddamned job and acting in the best interests of the American people?

Grrrr! If you need me, I’ll be in the AngryDome!

Finally — of course there’s a budget crunch. There would have to be, seeing as George W put his huge tax cut and his two wars on the national credit card. We need to put more money in the hands of the middle class and poor, because they’ll spend it on goods and services, which is what really drives our economy.