Uncle Sam has taken a beating lately, thanks to the recent scandal-fest. A Pew Research poll found that confidence in government was dirt-low before the IRS mess, et al. But, there’s one place the government shines that you’d never expect.

Few people talk about it. Bill Clinton does on a regular basis. But, rarely do you hear people discuss the importance of the Federal government in entrepreneurship.

Mariana Mazzucato does. And, she’s on a crusade to give Uncle Sam his due.

According to Mazzucato, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, the real engine of innovation is not located in Silicon Valley. It’s in Washington, D.C. Mazzucato’s premise is that government often takes the risk of discovering new science or developing new technology while private companies stand on government’s shoulders and reaps the rewards.

“We have socialized the risk of innovation but privatized the rewards.”

In her book, The Entrepreneurial State, Mazzucato explains that countries reaping the rewards of an innovation-led economy are always countries whose governments don’t merely try to soften market failures but actively lead the markets through public investment.

“Ironically one of the government’s that have been most active on this front is the US government, which is usually depicted in the media (and by politicians) as being more ‘market oriented,’” says Mazzucato.

“From putting a man on the moon, to developing what later became the Internet, the US government, through a host of different public agencies, provided direct financing not only of basic research but also applied research and even early stage public venture capital.”

She went on to explain that Apple got $500,000 in federal development funds in its early stages, which makes the recent revelation, which makes the bite from its virtually non-existent tax payment sting even more.

Mazzucato warns that the model of all-the-risk-and-none-of-the-reward that many governments take harms society and stifles future innovation as it unnecessarily limits investment funds for future entrepreneurs in order to fill corporate coffers.

When Google received funding for its algorithm from the National Science Foundation (NSF), is it right that after it earned billions nothing went back to the NSF (which is today starved of funds), or that some of Apple’s profits go into a national innovation fund to fund the next wave of Apples?

She also blames short-term VC thinking, not government incompetence, for the Solyndra debacle. Mazzucato says the venture capitalists pulled their funding and tanked the government’s loan guarantees just as the company was preparing a plan to deal with the dramatic price declines of solar panels made in China.

Professor Mazzucato’s premise needs to be heard. Without the federal government’s ability to fund basic science a fundamental technology, innovations from the iPhone to Teflon might never have been created.

So, maybe we should give Uncle Sam a pat on the back rather than trying to kick him to the curb.