JPL was formed as an outgrowth of CalTech. It is not a NASA field office. It competes for NASA work along with other bidders, like the MIT Instrumentation Lab and the applied physics lab at Johns Hopkins. Last I checked, about 90% of the JPL budget comes from NASA-related work. But it is not an operation owned or directly controlled by NASA. So, yes, JPL is funded by NASA, but it is on a contract basis, not a direct (unbid) appropriation.
Well, thanks for being open-minded. Sorry for being a bit testy earlier. Yes, as federal agencies go, NASA isn't too bad. I've dealt with worse, to be sure. They have their problems, as all government agencies do. But, over the years, they've been reasonably successful in implementing national policy. Fair-minded people can certainly debate the merits of those policies, but, like in the military, for the NASA folks, their's is not to question why...
I didn't notice you being testy. What I read was your opinions on the budget matters and me getting spanked on a few items of fact. I.e. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo came after Nasa, not before. Doh.
Personally, I'd have preferred that we militarize outer space before we looked commercial when spending Federal dollars. However, this decision got made before I was born and Nasa is a civilian agency.
Thanks again for all the info.