What is to be Done about NASA's SLS Rocket and Could Private Aerospace Companies Step Up?

Me, "It's a big dilemma. You have all this money invested in the SLS Rocket NASA is building, yet when it was conceived no one realized you could reuse a rocket to the point of what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing. Do you cancel it hoping you can rely on private industry to get you to Low Earth Orbit, The Moon, and Mars? Or, do you double down and hope its worth the money?
I believe private industry like SpaceX and Blue Origin are committed to bringing cheap access to space with reusable rockets. That said the thing that could pave their way is government seed money and maybe a new look at what NASA should be doing; instead of building rockets it should be like a college turning out world class astronauts for SpaceX and Blue Origin while if it wants to do manned missions buy a few seats on their rockets.
 I feel bad for SLS. But is it really worth the money? (One rocket launch every few years because it costs a lot to build and launch) or many public-private missions that try and make the most out of their funding? Taking the SLS money and investing it in private companies with more encouragement deals could help them and us get out into deep space. What is more beneficial in the long run? Trump has a very hard decision to make. I know if I were in his shoes, it would be for me."

From article, "Peter Thiel is pushing Donald Trump to use private space companies at NASA"

(NASA and its masters in Congress currently stand at a transition point, balancing two kinds of work: expensive and ambitious exploration missions done as cost-plus contracts...)

Me, "This is the problem, out of control spending contracts."

Continuing from article, (...by traditional firms like Boeing and Lockheed, and more prosaic near-Earth transit work performed as public-private partnerships with newer firms like SpaceX and Orbital ATK. Facing tight budgets, NASA’s efforts to split resources between the two have resulted in delays on all sides. The new administration promised a chance for advocates of both sides to re-litigate the pros and cons of each approach.
Trump’s comments on the campaign trail and his initial choice of advisers suggested that the businessman would lean toward reeling back NASA’s Mars ambitions and directing more resources to private companies operating in low-Earth orbit or, in the future, near the moon.)

The Problem with Government Contracts and the positives of Private aerospace companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Me, "This is what is the problem with government contracts. They plead, poor me poor me, costs have gone up, then explain all the jobs they are or have created, and the government rethinks killing a program. We need better contracts that raine in the extra costs of a program to a realistic amount. Doing more with less or what was negotiated should be the mantra of these companies. Not pay me more or forget the program. You want to talk threats? Sheesh! This is why I have lost confidence in the standard aerospace companies and believe private aerospace companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are the future. They set a goal and meet it. They may take some government money but they produce results."

From article,  "Trump suggests he would ditch F-35 in favor of cheaper plane"

(President-elect Donald Trump piled on fresh criticism of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated aircraft on Thursday, suggesting that he might abandon the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in favor of a cheaper plane because of the F-35’s high costs.

In a message on Twitter, Trump said that cost overruns in Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion program to develop the stealth jet had prompted him to ask Boeing, another major aircraft manufacturer, to “price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet.”

Trump has blasted the F-35 before, saying the cost is “out of control” and promising that his administration would find savings in military hardware purchases. His criticism of Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin and Chicago-based Boeing has roiled the defense industry and laid down a marker for a hard line from the White House in dealings with major players doing business with the government.

Even before Trump launched his public assault, the F-35, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, has come in for widespread criticism for design flaws and spiraling costs. While the current price for the various F-35 variants is at least $100 million per plane, the company has said that it will fall to $85 million each in four or five years.)