In passing an infrastructure invoice, Democrats should redefine fiscal accountability to satisfy local weather change and the wants of People

Earlier this month, Senate Democrats alone, without the support of their Republican counterparts, pushed forward to pass a $ 3.5 trillion budget resolution.

This resolution is of course the necessary precursor for the Senate Democrats to be in a position to approve a historically massive and urgently needed investment in the country’s human and environmentally friendly infrastructure on their own. While the details of the comprehensive economic package that the Democrats have pondered are far from being finalized, let alone agreed by the required number of Democrats in Congress, we have heard that the plans include expanding the social safety net, helping families provide childcare, provide significant funding to combat climate change, and much more.

All of these elements have vociferously opposed Republicans in Congress, as evidenced by their total absence from the bipartisan infrastructure bill approved by the Senate earlier this month.

Of course, the Republican opposition is not the only obstacle standing in the way of Congress realizing President Joe Biden’s ambitious hopes for signature politics. More moderate Democrats, most clearly Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), have spoken out against the $ 3.5 million price, which was already a compromise for the progressive Democrats.

These so-called “moderate” voices tend to repeat the mantras of so-called “financially conservative” Republicans, who continue to complain about what they see as excessive spending.

Manchin’s concern, made the same day that Senate Democrats passed the budgetary decision, exemplifies this supposedly responsible or conservative position. Manchin said in a statement at the time:

“Given the current state of economic recovery, it is simply irresponsible to continue spending at levels better suited to responding to a Great Depression or a Great Recession – not an economy poised to overheat.”

While Manchin’s rhetoric of “irresponsibility” is typical and even stale, it is still firmly entrenched and represents exactly the kind of language that Democrats must use in a campaign to sway the hearts and minds of Americans in order to promote economic and political life human interests.

Has some people overlooked the fact that millions of Americans are still in dire straits, facing housing and food insecurity, unaffordable wages, lack of access to quality health care, and more?

Have some people, like so many supposedly fiscal conservatives who complain of excessive spending, completely ignored the fact that a greater threat to our economic prosperity and survival is an overheated environment?

Take, for example, the fact that the Colorado River is drying up at an alarming rate, posing a tremendous and ominous threat to a water supply that not only supports large numbers of lives but is vital to the country’s economy and livelihood . Over the past two decades, the river has shrunk by 20% compared to the 20th century average, a situation mainly due to the man-made climate crisis.

According to CNN:

Today, this river system supplies 40 million people in seven western states and Mexico, and irrigates more than 5 million acres of farmland on its way to Mexico and the Gulf of California.

Las Vegas depends on the river for 90% of its water supply, Tucson for 82% and San Diego for around 66%. In Los Angeles, Phoenix and Denver, too, large parts of the water come from the river, and experts believe that these booming metropolises would not have been possible without its supply.

But a crisis is unfolding and farmers, scientists, water managers and policymakers across the Southwest are increasingly alarmed.

So let’s ask ourselves a fundamental question about fiscal responsibility and climate change:

What is Fiscally Irresponsible? to not Spend money to invest in combating climate change and building greener infrastructure that anticipates the damage climate change will do to the nation, or to find means to mitigate damage and make the world a habitable and greener world for building the future foundation of our life ?:

We often hear Republicans and Democrats like Manchin calling themselves “fiscal conservative” complaining of excessive spending, and often arguing that we should approach the federal budget the way families do their household budgets.

They seem to imply that families balance their budgets regardless of their needs for food, health care, education, a healthy home environment, etc.

We have to point out once and for all how ridiculous this is.

Many parents pull their credit cards out or go into debt to pay for their children’s medical care and education – and most certainly to feed their children. They don’t sit around – if they can access funds, even if it means they are going into debt – debating whether to fill this child’s den, get cancer treatment, heat their homes, or feed their families.

For most of us in family life, being responsible for tax purposes means above all meeting the needs of the family in the best possible way and with all necessary means.

And we know that not caring for our family’s health needs will cost more later, just as we know it will cost us exponentially more in the future if we don’t address our crumbling infrastructure and the effects of climate change.

For example, we know that evicting families, and most importantly, neglecting housing needs in the middle of a pandemic will only exacerbate the public health crisis and cost us more in the long run.

One of the main challenges for the Democrats, which, if mastered, could bear much fruit in advocacy, is therefore to redefine “financial responsibility” and “conservatism”.

The republican ideology “preserves” nothing. It ushers in the destruction of our world on which the foundation of our life and survival depends.

What Republicans call “socialism” doesn’t give away free things; it is a wise investment in the short and long term.

Tim Libretti is a professor of American literature and culture at a Chicago state university. A longtime progressive voice, he has published many scholarly and journalistic articles on culture, class, race, gender, and politics for which he was supported by the Working Class Studies Association, the International Labor Communications Association, the National Federation of Press Women, and the Illinois Woman’s Press Association .