SLS and Orion: not actually made by NASA...
This is a bit of a side issue, but:
John Culberson might well have been in favour of NASA being well funded and that's not a bad thing at all. But if what he's been doing is supporting development of the Orion spacecraft and the SLS (both mentioned in the original article), what he's been doing is supporting funding for the contractors who are making the things.
That is not necessarily the same as doing the best thing for NASA and the US space programme and it might be that an alternative approach would make better use of NASA funding.
It might well be argued at least in the case of the SLS that alternative contractors would be able to do a better job more quickly and more cheaply. Certainly SpaceX has a track record in developing reliable launcher designs and its BFR design should be able to do everything the SLS is meant to do at considerably lower cost. So much of the SLS is based on 1970s technology - the solid boosters and main engines derived from the Space Shuttle - that it's to be expected that SpaceX's BFR will almost certainly prove itself cheaper while being just as capable and reliable.
As far as the Orion space craft goes - well, the project isn't going quickly, but then again the contractors (Lockheed Martin and the ESA) are working on developing a completely new orbital space craft, which is something that's not been done for some decades. No current engineering team has any experience doing the job so I'd not be one to argue that NASA should scrap Orion and go for an alternative supplier like SpaceX. Oh yes, I expect SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft will turn out to be a reliable people carrier in the crewed version, but it does make sense to have a few different crewed spacecraft developed to service: they'll be optimised for different roles, and if a problem grounds one design for a while, there'll be others available.