I've had a bit of success blowing away some the more egregious techno-libertarian myths, with sources like Bill Gates Sr:
"Let's talk about the question of why people are wealthy. There is a myth that it's a function of enormous personal attributes. [...] The individual wealth which is generated in this economy is, in my judgment, and I doubt that there is much that anyone could disagree with about this, is a function of the innovative businesses which are created as a result of federal research. But you understand that the people who benefit from that research get it free. [...] So, if somebody starts a software company or a biotechnology company, or even if somebody owns a building in downtown Washington which you rent to those people, it starts from the same place. It starts from this incredible research activity which is going on with federal money."
-- Bill Gates Sr., 2003 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=900584
Bush recently spoke about the basic research subsidies... talks about how the iPod came from it. Claims that private R&D is 2X public, but I'm sure it's the shorter-term "investment" kind which is expected to pay off, rather than the immense cost and risk of fundamental research which the public pays for. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2006/0004343272&EDATE=
This NYT article breaks it down... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?ex=1270094400&en=6ca69efefeb9c0dc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
I hear there's pressure for the gov't to shift funding away from fundamental research, to shorter-term deliverables. Because in the grand tradition of kicking away the ladder, established companies often prefer that kind of subsidy. Maybe it also has something to do with Bush's anti-science agenda, dunno.
Tayssir