"national security strategy outlined in Integrated Power, by Lawrence Korb and
Robert Boorstin of the Center for American Progress.i Integrated power requires
the United States to discard traditional concepts of “hard” and “soft” power and
views them as essential partners, not alternatives or competitors. Integrated
power means abolishing the artificial policy and budget divides between defense,
homeland security, diplomatic, and development assistance policies in U.S. foreign policy."

This appears to be bad idea. But I haven't read "Integrated Power". I would say it's similar to saying "means abolishing the artificial policy and budget divides between defense" and NASA. I have of course no problem (unlike some people) of NASA working with the military, but I want the "artificial policy and budget divides" to remain.

Next point.
"First, while the military’s first priority should be to protect the homeland, this administration has never given homeland defense the priority it deserves in doctrine or resources."

I don't agree with this being the miltary first priority. US modern miltary is build to project power. We don't need a large standing army for purpose of defending the Homeland. This is the road to a police state. The Framer of constitution warned against such an idea.
The only justification for the large US miltary is the lesson from WWI and WWII. If we don't want to spend the resources to provide the world [and more importantly yourselves] with gobal security the US tax payers can make this decision- and dramatically lower defense spending- basically going back to the kind of miltary we had prior to WWI.