ITER experimental fusion reactor is estemated to cost around $20 billion, the US national defense budget is more then $500 billion a year. However, I would think it would take much more then $500 billion to fund functional micro fusion reactors, that is a lot of scientists you have to convince to leave their research institutes and go private (military even) against their best interests, a lot of unexpected problems we don't even know about to solve (that's why it's an experimental reactor), and then to miniaturize and simplify these reactors all the while keeping up the effort the US is doing right now. I would also think quite a lot of researchers wouldn't be willing to work for the US military. I think fusion is coming, but I don't think it'll come from the US.

The military has upkeep you can't just drop from one day to the next.

Graphene has been called a miracle material since the early seventies, this means it has taken close to 50 years to mature so far, I don't think that is to bad. There are a lot of practical uses already, especially in medicine. Maybe not the ones the media likes to rave about, but still it's hard to ignore.

The integrated circuit left the lab (first patents) in 1949, a year after the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine started running (arguably the first modern computer), it took until the mid sixties, perhaps early seventies for integrated circuits to really take of as I understand.

Game theory first surfaced in the fifties, it only became to revolutionize data analysis in biology in the seventies.

Plastics were invented in the early 1800s, it took until the 1930s until most people really started seeing benefits.

Things take time, media is bad, research is research. More funding would speed things up, and so would a war probably. I would prefer the former.