concept you're talking about, this 'investment' in NASA that results in the "commercialization of technologies". But what are they and exactly how have they

Mr. Boyer, please tell us what technologies you are referring to. I can appreciate the concept you're talking about, this 'investment' in NASA that results in the "commercialization of technologies". But what are they and exactly how have they benefitted the taxpaying public directly?

NASA has paid for its activities many times over through taxation gained by the commercialization of technologies it has created or perfected for its activities. Current estimates place the payback for Apollo at about 4x the program's overall costs, for example.

Many items we take for granted here in the early 21st century can be traced back to NASA and its contractors, and since technology is the lifeblood of the economies of the new century, it be folly to abandon NASA now.

Therefore, NASA should continue what it is chartered to do: aeronautics, space exploration, etc., not building national transportation infrastructure.

I think Obama needs to change NASA's mission to designing, testing, and overseeing mfg. of components, for a nationwide transit system.
Make it simple and inexpensive (probally the biggest challenge for NASA) like a train set. mass produce the components in our dieing factories,putting skilled workers back to work.
Obtain right of ways, so construction workers can grade, and assemble track, bridges, stations, AND the new electric grid on said ROW's to tie in our new green energy production.

So if a herd of "rocket scientist" can't pull that off in say 10 years? Then I say can the bumms!
We don't need to be black-holin' money on Moon or Mars missions.

Do you think Obama should fund NASA? Or put the money towards more terrestrial problems?