I am going to ignore the funding question and speak directly to the question regarding current Holocaust research. You can then determine for yourself if you believe it to be valuable.

Right off the bat, I don't actually study the Holocaust. I study how Americans have understood and memorialized the Holocaust in the past: American Holocaust Memory. As such, I am in an odd position of being both in and outside the field. I hope that others who study the Holocaust more directly can give you some more specific answers on current research.

Holocaust researchers have been moving in a number of new directions recently which help bring depth to previous understandings. One such area is in gaining new insights into Holocaust perpetration. It is a topic that, from the beginning, researchers have been interested in. There have been great battles (ok, maybe just scholarly disagreement) over such questions as what motivated the perpetrators? Daniel Goldhagen said it was a specifically German eliminationist anti-Semitism. Most others disagree with him, but might suggest a mix of bureaucratic indifference, self-interest, group think, etc. While this debate seems fairly settled, it only takes a researcher picking up a new source or analytic framework to change how historians think about the motivations of perpetrators.

However, currently, one big point of contention is the nature of perpetrators who are not German men. In Hitler's Furies, Wendy Lower studies the large number of female functionaries who accompanied police battalions and others into the killing fields. In, Neighbors, Jan Gross analyzes records of a post-war trial and suggests that an entire towns worth of Jews were brutally killed by their Polish neighbors with little to no instigation by the German occupiers. Such works help us to understand both the motivations of killers and the context in which the Holocaust played out. The expansion of the category of perpetrator to non-Germans has been VERY strongly opposed by Polish, Ukrainian, etc. organizations and people who viewed their countrymen as victims. Hence we are discovering how people could be both victims and perpetrators during the atrocities of WWII.

The framework of understanding the Holocaust in total is also a point of research. Holocaust by Peter Longerich offers up the suggestion that judenpolitik (Jewish policy) guided the Holocaust. We should, in other words, see the Nazi judenpolitik as vying with other Nazi policy, such as foreign or economic. This helps explain the varying implementations of the Holocaust in Nazi occupied Europe in different locations or at different times.

The Holocaust is also, being recontextualized as scholars revisit victimhood. Although there is still debate about whether we can/should include only Jews or other victims as well in "the Holocaust," scholars are consistently looking into the lives of non-Jewish victims who have been previously overlooked.

In fact, lets take your last question,

Haven't we already mined all the answers to how the Nazis manipulated the Germans?

This question in itself exhibits a line of thinking that scholars in the past might have embraced, but no longer due thanks to continued research. It is clear that an overwhelming number of Germans took part in the Holocaust willingly. Further, they were not compelled or brainwashed (see Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning).

If you have further questions, let me know.