Critics will likely raise the question of its cost, safety and reliability. Financially, its cost is high, with annual budgets in the billions and no direct reward to the tax-paying public for NASA's budget. Because these are difficult tax times, you need to make tough choices. The reduction of manned flights and even unmanned flights becomes a necessity. Especially with so many other programs considered essential to government spending, programs like healthcare, infrastructure and the military. NASA's budget for 2016 is $18.5 billion. That's a good increase over the $18 billion Congress approved in the 2015 budget. That's nearly $1 billion more than the amount spent in the 2014 budget. But NASA's budget represents only 0, 4% of the total. The amount spent on the program since its inception is less than that spent on the 2008 bank bailout (Source: “Missions Aborted,” New York Times, October 11, 2015). The progress and economic growth of the last three decades have their roots in the space program. Military applications alone have presumably repaid the investments made, with technologies such as satellites, GPS and missiles. Furthermore, to the private sector things like transistors, printed circuit boards, computerization, and miniaturization technologies have all been advanced at unprecedented rates by the space program, not to mention the marketability of cell phones, GPS, and even satellite radio. Much of the technology was created through the space program and advanced methods of building objects that require a high rate of precision. Furthermore, using or collaborating with commercial companies offers a valuable opportunity to make space travel and exploration less expensive. One of the main arguments against funding NASA is that the private sector can innovate, develop and implement similar projects more quickly and with much less money than a government.