I don't prefer that model from a moral point of view, but it is worthwhile from a practical point of view. Lobbying the government has a higher ROI than research for most companies. As such many companies lobby heavily for loopholes, benefits, etc all in explicit name of jobs. (And private benefit for execs and owners)
Why concede that fight? If very long term basic science is of communal benefit and can't happen in the current market structure, why not use 10% of the money to fight against lobbyists asking for corporate handouts?
Because in so doing, you're just getting into a shouting match saying "My handouts aren't really handouts. They're important." Which is precisely what everyone who is looking for government money does.
Rather than taking part in the K Street circus of perverse incentives, why not just spend the money on research?
Why concede that fight? If very long term basic science is of communal benefit and can't happen in the current market structure, why not use 10% of the money to fight against lobbyists asking for corporate handouts?