This post first appeared on Minyanville.

It’s the government, stupid.

As Washington expands its role in managing the day-to-day operations of American business, companies are increasingly turning their strategic focus to tapping federal cash and lending programs. And despite the strings often attached to government money, many are finding that Uncle Sam is the only game in town during these troubled economic times.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal highlights just how essential lawmakers and regulators have become in America’s new breed of government-directed capitalism. Hunting retailers, farm-equipment manufacturers, and, of course, banks (Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC)) and insurance companies are all sidling up to the government trough.

And even as public opinion slowly turns against bureaucrats’ massive intervention into the private economy, Washington insiders are raking in piles of cash. According to the Journal, spending on lobbyists in 2009 could reach $3.3 billion, equal to the total during the 2008 election year. And for good reason: Without representation in Washington, companies just can’t compete.

After the financing arm of Deere & Co. (DE) tapped the FDIC to guarantee $2 billion in debt last December, the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, a trade group, leapt into action to protect other members. Deere rivals, including Caterpillar (CAT) and a host of smaller firms, weren’t eligible for government-supported debt issuances, so the group’s president asked the Federal Reserve to expand the Troubled Asset Lending Facility to include sales of farm equipment and other machinery.

The Fed acquiesced; the agricultural industry must also be too big to fail.

But not every company has the ear of the Washington power brokers, leaving those forced to go it alone at a distinct disadvantage. Credit is already precious for small businesses, and what little they do have is far more expensive than that of their larger, better-connected rivals. This doesn’t bode well for an economy struggling to drag itself out of recession, since small businesses account for the lion’s share of job growth on the other side of a downturn.

The eventual recovery, which a growing number of optimists predict is just around the corner, could yield a bitter pill for corners of the economy still heavily dependent on government handouts. Although lawmakers vow to support systemically vital companies and industries for as long as needed, at some point Washington must try to take back what it has so generously given.

Witness the market for home loans, where government purchases of mortgage-backed securities have helped keep rates abnormally low. Even without the Fed dumping its Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) bond portfolio onto the market, rates have risen sharply in the past month, threatening to forestall the nascent “recovery” in the housing market.

Were the Fed to pull back its support of the housing market, rates would skyrocket. This would be politically — not to mention economically — unacceptable.

And while the ideological debate rages over whether Washington bureaucrats are becoming too entrenched in the American economy, businessmen and -women still must get up each morning, head to work, and try to stay above water. And — insofar as lobbying for government money outstrips developing new technologies or innovating, producing and otherwise generating economic output — the economy suffers.

And green shoots or no, this economy already has enough cards stacked against it.

The real estate and mortgage industries are busy battening down the hatches for the inevitable tidal wave of regulatory reform. Meanwhile, Housingwire.com reports government officials are already hard at work trying to outdo each other as the protector of the “everyday common household victim” of our “national crisis.”

Two illustrative examples of regulatory restructuring have been rolled out in last two months. In New York State, legislators passed a series of measures essentially placing a one-year moratorium on foreclosures. Under the program, borrowers already in default will pay a nominal monthly sum and be eligible for state funds to supplement existing mortgage obligations.

In California, lawmakers passed legislation that would require more extensive notification for delinquent borrowers before the foreclosure process can begin. Homeowners would be entitled to meetings with servicers to learn their restructuring options, placing a greater onus of responsibility on servicers to reach out to borrowers prior to beginning foreclosure proceedings.

Both measures are designed to ease pressures on distressed borrowers, but the New York plans go well beyond those in California. The California laws are designed to ensure increased communication between borrower and lender. The New York law is designed to put a halt to the process of foreclosure, presumably to await more extensive reforms or bailout plans still to come.

In both states, these measures mark the tip of the iceberg in the process of reforming regulatory frameworks for mortgage lending. In this election year, public support is swelling for pieces of legislation like these and even larger moves are likely on their way.

The challenge for regulators — and the lobbyists so generously pleading their case — is to enact rules and enforcement schemes that prevent fraud and predatory lending, without being too constrictive to legitimate business. Many such rules already exist; it remains to be seen if the fallout from the collapse of the mortgage industry can convince regulators to enforce their own rules.