Not bleeding money into nuclear plants has bipartisan support. The way to make nuclear competitive is with a carbon tax. Guess which side opposes a carbon tax.
Do you have anything that supports this? This is not supported by anything I have read thus far and I think we are all aware that Nuclear was actually cheap back in the 60's. USA nuclear costs did increase drastically, especially after three Mile Island and political pressures. Many countries managed to keep costs consistent (Japan, Canada) though. Money doesn't need to bleed into Nuclear, and you should expect to see more investment there in the near future with fusion. The issues in USA with nuclear are over half a century old so I think your comment is disingenuous. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
