To get that kind of commitment you the strong backing of senators from a dozen different states. It rarely happens in non military projects, and when it does it's a boondoggle. Look to the SLS project, $12 billion spent to recycle space shuttle engines from the 70s and 80s.
The latter, under any government type, don't have a great track record of massive government investment accelerating progress.
Proof of concept level grants, sure! But it doesn't seem to scale past that. IMHO, a free market is a better GTM-stage+ capital allocator.
Government can often be a failure-prone capital allocator, but it can also result in improved alignment when an entire industry with wide socioeconomic implications is about to be born.
But I'd still hazard the exception rather than the rule, globally.
The Chinese did much of the same with their tech sector especially Huawei if I remember correctly with gigantic tax breaks and cheap financing.
In this case, subsidies (and incentives) are 'governments throwing money at engineering problems'. The US does the same for SpaceX, EV manufacturers, and the entire military industrial complex – with the latter making tech controlled by the government
Those only have a limited dependence on dozens of senators; the NIH typically gets most of what it asks for every year. The US has funded science at spectacular levels in a bipartisan way for some time (that may change in the future). Of course there is still a lot of political bargaining, I'm not going to deny that.
What's interesting is that we could clearly spend even more if we felt it was a priority. There's so much that could be taken from military spending without having a direct impact on our defense. But I don't think we want to do that; during my grad school career, the NIH budget almost doubled, which led to a huge bolus of grad students minted as PhDs, who then had no jobs beccause the size of faculty positions didn't change nearly as quickly.
I admire China's efforts and I see a lot of similarities in China to the US around 1900: the time when the balance of industry and technology shifted from EU to US, but growing your industry super-fast runs the risk of overheating and meltdown.
China recently allocated $41 Billion just to improve chip production. The US hasn't spent like that since the Apollo program.
But my real points are: "allocation" is not actual spend. And if they do spend that much, they will grow the industry so fast it runs the risk of collapsing or at least not being sustainable, with the inevitable crashes following.