Government hardly does things differently these days.  There is a desired result for the betterment of man, but unfortunately there is also the personal interest considerations of the politicians who create such programs.  Certainly a "societal problem" being addressed, whether a lack of health care or inability to pay for the roof over our head, can lead to a positive feeling of the official handling said problem.  At least from the recipient's viewpoint.  

To solve a particular constituency's "trouble," the representative gives money, constituency receives money, recipient loves representative.  A "bought" vote, buried in the philanthropic wonder of a government gone wild stripping itself and rewarding desires only dreamed of several generations before.  

Going further, those philanthropic desires to better mankind extend to development of new human progress.  In Michigan, it is the stated goal of the MEDC to promote certain interests:

"21st century economy. Leveraging Michigan's strengths in research, engineering and manufacturing industries, we're targeting the following high-growth industries:
Alternative energy
Life sciences
Homeland security and defense
Advanced manufacturing industry "

Alternative energy is certainly a big one, but make no mistake tax dollars are quite easily doled out for the "advancement" of those other interests, as well as a few which quite literally must FLY past review:

The timing of the SEIU's application for tax credits is also of interest. An application for tax breaks on behalf of an entity that did not exist would be highly irregular, but if SEIU waited until October 22 to file an application with MEDC, that would mean that MEDC took only 18 business days to receive, evaluate and reach a decision on that application. 

Truly those efforts toward the "betterment of humankind" could be better placed.  

Never mind the questionable methods developed for the panel to determine which candidate for assistance is more worthy, the fact that they must first take forcefully from taxpayers to provide such benevolence is troubling at best.  Our disagreement with that form of charity or advancement hardly matters it seems, if there is a backside reward for the givers.

Ultimately, if someone disagrees with the intent of our contest, or the prize my wife and I have determined the business can afford, they can refuse to patronize our tiny operation. They can proceed along their merry little way having never spent a dime to provide the means that we use to have such a competition.  They are no worse off for their disagreement, and have been harmed in no way.

Our government, outside of its responsibility to provide a safe environment cannot be ignored so easily.  

Your contribution to the betterment of man through a government sponsor of "life sciences" or "alternative energy" will most certainly buy a politician's seat more permanently, just as our (business) contribution with the promotion of the constitution to our younger generation provides us with more exposure and higher sales.  The difference however, is who it is that must pay for such measures.

Government cannot at all achieve philanthropic goals without first relieving some of its citizens from that which was earned.

The lesson?  Humanity is hardly advanced when the right pocket is picked to provide the benefit to the left.