Enjoy, but that's a debate that's been going on for literally decades.
It's also the case that, if you take manned missions of the table into an indefinite future, a lot of the rationale for many unmanned missions goes away too.
There’s a lot to explore in the solar system. Several satellites orbiting every planet and several interesting moons. Building “smarter” robotic missions to explore…
Imagination is something the bean counters deciding the budget do not have, which is why "ideal project" is always some variation on how we can spread jobs across most districts.
It's also the case that voters--i.e. those who at least theoretically control the purse strings--generally get more excited about human space exploration. If you cross humans off the options list, those voters are probably going to be less excited about space projects in general with the possible exception of things with fairly direct benefits such as solar and earth projects.
I do wonder at times if the jobs focus isn't super specific to USA, but I don't know many other places. Here in Poland usually the issue is about "will it be done in country or bought elsewhere?" and the likes, though there was obvious malfeasance based around local jobs with the canceling of Caracal contract
Consider how even if you try to optimize the costs the projects get cut down until the rationale for cost optimization disappears, like with Cassini-Huygens where a promising serial production drone body for handling unmanned missions was effectively canceled. At least with manned missions it's easier to drum up popular support or play on politicians' ego about being without a manned capability.
It's also the case that, if you take manned missions of the table into an indefinite future, a lot of the rationale for many unmanned missions goes away too.