> the federal government wants to give these chip companies a bunch of money as long as they pinky promise to uphold the requirements of the bargain?
This mischaracterizes the bill. There are a bunch of programs [1], ranging from funding the National Science Foundation to this thing [2]. (Much of the bill is a tax credit, which involves the government forking over no money up front.)
If you're concerned about grants, the Commerce Department is soliciting input for the coming rule making process [3][4].
I understand that there's a lot of other things in the bill; I'm not trying to dismiss that. But I think the big thing front and center is the desire of the government to bring chip manufacturing back to the states. That's what's driving the majority of the bill, it seems.
I love the idea of funding universities for prototyping and discovering new technologies, but the tech developed needs to be open to all, not locked behind a patent owned by MIT.
I don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front. At the end of the day, the company reaps that benefit at the expense of our taxes.
I'll have to check out links 3 and 4 and see about sending in my comments, thank you.
This mischaracterizes the bill. There are a bunch of programs [1], ranging from funding the National Science Foundation to this thing [2]. (Much of the bill is a tax credit, which involves the government forking over no money up front.)
If you're concerned about grants, the Commerce Department is soliciting input for the coming rule making process [3][4].
[1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1201E1CA-73CB...
[2] https://sam.gov/opp/656b39ff64ec4d4fa47ff9820d1c554b/view
[3] https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2022/01/commerc...
[4] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/24/2022-01...