I wish articles like this brought out some of the insights from MMT economists, because not challenging how that is framed is harmful to the left. Saying that it adds to the debt is, again, a framing that benefits the powerful and is not a real issue. We could use this as a means to change how money is created and injected into the economy by the federal government. The federal government does not borrow or tax in order to spend. As has been said many times, that public “debt” is not supposed to be paid back and is different than the debt you take out to go to school (horrible) or get a house. If the government did want to pay it back, for whatever reason, it could be paid back, and it would ultimately involve changing numbers on a computer screen. That private does have to be paid back, and thanks to Biden student loan debt cannot be written off even with bankruptcy. Because of the rules created by the politicians in power, spending increases have to be offset by cuts elsewhere or tax increases. However, things don’t have to be that way. This infrastructure plan was not created by a progressive or in order to benefit working people, but I don’t think critiquing it because it isn’t fiscally hawkish is a good framing. That entire framing needs to be challenged, or at least needs to be modified to incorporate the insights from the MMT economists.