The US Government as a Seed Money VC

;d like to float an economy spurring concept by the business.gov community. I-s a concept that intersects government and small business. America is the wealthiest country in the world, both in terms of collective financial worth and highly educated human capital, both US born and foreign born that electively moves to the US. Why is there not governmental policy that leverages these two strengths by making them accessible to each other?

What would you think the effect would be of a government financed, VC-style seed funding initiative for start-ups that show promise of creating jobs and adding to the economy? The intent here would be to create a perpetual engine of economic growth that is seeded with tax paye-s money to begin with and then self-funds and even kicks off profit to pay for other governmental programs once up and running. Take a modest $10 Billion annual budget allotment that would be invested in the 20,000 most promising start-up business plans each year as selected by a competition committee. There could be three tiers of funding levels: 5000 x $1M, 5000 x $500K, and 10,000 x $250K investment. The money would have to be given out each year. The government would be inputting the money as an investment and thus be a sizeable shareholder of each seed company. For oversight, they could assign a government-employed CPA to keep tabs on each funded business.

The political rhetoric always seems to be that entrepreneurs, small business, and innovation is the backbone of American economic success and job creation, yet what is really being done to  encourage start-ups which has't been done before? Start-ups are the seeds of economic growth, yet they are not nurtured or encouraged in any meaningful way. Loans do not really exist for them, as most of you already know. Even the most small business friendly banks wo't consider a business with less than 2 years revenue history. Neither will equity investors invest at the start-up level as VC companies prefer the low-hanging fruit of fewer, larger deals as they are'more profitabl'. Thus, unless an entrepreneur has friends and family investors or they have their own money to invest, the start-ups never materialize. 'd guess i's something like 99.9% of viable start-up concepts do't materialize because of funding. Some would argue that this means they are't viable enough, but what if the issue is really just access to capital? These start-ups are like the infants in our economy, yet the mortality rate is absurdly high because we don't nurture them. And even the ones that get funding spend half of their time finding money. Imagine how much we're leaving on the table as the American economy?

Imagine the economic explosion that would occur if we the people collectively make a small investment in 20,000 of America's best and brightest innovators and entrepreneurs each and every year?