Gil,

A person's salary is mostly the creation of his productive labour. But the government also had a hand in its creation, since without a government there'd be no peace and people wouldn't be able to do their jobs. This means that tax isn't exactly like theft. If enough people could be persuaded that taxes should be cut drastically then politicians would probably do so. But, however desirable, cutting taxes might be like cutting the noise level in a restaurant. You need 95% co-operation, otherwise people will soon resume shouting in order to be heard. Logically then, over time, as David said, governments will grab all the taxes they can.

If that's true then the President is very limited in what cuts he could make. If, having read Elliot’s comment, he decided to cancel 1000 projects and perhaps merge a few departments then very likely the total budget of other departments would quickly rise to restore the burden.

His primary budgetary choices, then, concern which departments should get more money. He thinks NASA should get more money so we can go to Mars.

The World also thinks it's a good thing to go to Mars. We all agree. Probably, the technical developments needed to start actually colonizing the cosmos will come from private individuals. However the precedents and the general interest in space which NASA's missions will bring about are likely to inspire more individuals to join that creative effort. (BTW, Rich, I think the Xprize will act in this direction too, regardless of the vital need for cheaper launch technology you rightly mention). Also, the missions may help prevent powerful bureaucrats from hampering progress in space with environmental regulation or whatever. Hey, the new politics would be a refreshing change from inward-looking ritual discussions about healthcare and unemployment.

I think we've exonerated Bush. Should government employees, tax collectors, or NASA workers choose differently, like quitting their jobs? I don't think morality over the source of funding comes into this issue directly.

But what about indirectly? There are the two consequentialist arguments I gave above. Encouraging a move out into the solar system might well have tax implications that favour liberty within the not-so-distant future. (One minor point I omitted is that we may see spin-offs for the missile defense shield.)