There's a difference between "it's twice as expensive as the alternatives" and "it's 20x as expensive as the alternatives", though.

SpaceX has upended the cost analysis on stuff like this.

The issue is that there was no program using SLS that made any sense. It was so expensive it could not be used.

The only way forward is reducing launch costs. SpaceX did that, but if that had not happened SLS still would have been pointless.

Probably true, but I'm trying to be generous.

It's been a huge political boondoggle.

It did from the perspective of saving STS jobs.

But saving jobs by itself doesn't bring much benefits. Maybe if you're going to use that experience in a soon to come follow-up project... which with NASA could be very much not guaranteed.

Benefits to whom?

If you assume it’s to benefit NASA, but I think this statement is meant to speak to benefits to politicians

Graft and corruption make sense to politicians. They don't make sense to the country as a whole. Public Choice Theory offers explanations, not justifications.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but was taking a less cynical perspective. I was talking about the “self licking ice cream cone” in that politicians will protect their constituents interest whether it makes sense for the country or not.