Economy Ellen Brown Original

Ellen Brown: How to Green Our Parched Farmlands and Finance Critical Infrastructure 

There are work-arounds the U.S. can use to fund affordable housing, drought responses, and other urgently-needed infrastructure that was left out of the two recent spending bills.
Drought-stricken farmland in California. [Eric Sonstroem / CC BY 2.0]

By Ellen Brown | Original to ScheerPost

Congress has passed two major infrastructure bills in the last year, but imminent needs in infrastructure funding remain. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law chiefly focused on conventional highway programs, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) mainly centered on energy security and combating climate change. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), over $2 trillion in much-needed infrastructure is still unfunded, including projects to address drought, affordable housing, high-speed rail, and power transmission lines. By 2039, per the ASCE, continued underinvestment at current rates will cost $10 trillion in cumulative lost GDP, more than 3 million jobs in that year, and $2.24 trillion in exports over the next 20 years.

Particularly urgent today is infrastructure to counteract the record-breaking drought in the U.S. Southwest, where 50% of the nation’s food supply is grown. Subsidies for such things as the purchase of electric vehicles, featured in the IRA, will pad the coffers of the industries lobbying for them but will not get water to our parched farmlands any time soon. More direct action is needed. But as noted by Todd Tucker in a Roosevelt Institute article, “Today, a gridlocked and austerity-minded Congress balks at appropriating sufficient money to ensure emergency readiness. … [T]he US system of government’s numerous veto points make emergency response harder than under parliamentary or authoritarian systems.”

There are, however, other ways to finance these essential projects. “A work-around,” says Tucker, “is so-called off-balance sheet money creation.” That was the approach taken in the 1930s, when commercial banks were bankrupt and the country faced its worst-ever economic depression; yet the government succeeded in building infrastructure as never before.

Off-budget Funding: The Model of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation

For funding its national infrastructure campaign in the Great Depression, Congress called on the publicly-owned Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It was not actually a bank; it got its liquidity by issuing bonds. Notes Tucker, “The RFC … was allowed to borrow money from the Treasury and the capital markets, and then invest in relief and mobilization efforts that would eventually generate a return for taxpayers, all while skating past austerity hawks determined to cut or freeze government spending.”

According to James Butkiewicz, professor of economics at the University of Delaware:

The RFC was an executive agency with the ability to obtain funding through the Treasury outside of the normal legislative process. Thus, the RFC could be used to finance a variety of favored projects and programs without obtaining legislative approval. RFC lending did not count toward budgetary expenditures, so the expansion of the role and influence of the government through the RFC was not reflected in the federal budget.

The RFC lent to federal government agencies including the Commodity Credit Corporation (which lent to farmers), the Electric Home and Farm Authority, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Public Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). It also made direct loans to local governments and businesses and funded eight RFC wartime subsidiaries in the 1940s that were essential to the war effort.  

The infrastructure projects of one agency alone, the Works Progress Administration, included 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields; and some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings (built, rebuilt, or expanded), including 41,300 schools. For local governments that had hit their borrowing limits on their taxpayer-funded general obligation bonds, a workaround was devised: they could borrow by issuing “revenue bonds,” which were backed not by taxes but by the revenue that would be generated by the infrastructure funded by the loans. 

A bill currently before Congress, HR 3339, proposes to duplicate the feats of the RFC without increasing the federal budget deficit or taxes, by forming a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB). 

China’s State “Policy Banks”

China is dealing with the global economic downturn by embarking on a stimulus program involving large national infrastructure projects, including massive water infrastructure. For funding, the government is drawing on three state-owned “policy banks” structured like the RFC. 

The Chinese government is one of those systems referred to by Todd Tucker as not being hampered by “a gridlocked and austerity-minded Congress.” It can just issue a five-year plan and hit the ground running. In May 2022, it began construction on 3,876 large projects with a total investment of nearly 2.4 trillion yuan (about $350 billion).   

Funding is coming chiefly from China’s “policy banks” set up in 1994 to provide targeted loans in areas where profit-driven banks might be reluctant to lend. They are the China Development Bank, the Export-​Import Bank of China and the Agricultural Development Bank of China. As noted in a June 30 article in the Washington Post, China could also draw on its “Big Four” banks – Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Corp., Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., and Bank of China Ltd. – but “they are essentially profit-driven commercial banks that can be quite picky when it comes to selecting borrowers and projects. The policy lenders, however, operate on a non-profit basis and are often recruited to pour cheap funds into projects that are less attractive financially but matter to the longer-term development of the economy.”

Like the RFC, the policy banks mainly get their funds by issuing bonds. They can also get “Pledged Supplementary Lending” directly from the Chinese central bank, which presumably creates the money on its books, as all central banks are empowered to do.

Dealing with China’s Water Crisis

According to the Xinhua News Agency, on July 7 construction began on a project linking China’s two mega water infrastructures – the Three Gorges Project and the South-to-North Water Diversion Project – transferring water from the water-abundant south to the arid northern region of the country. The goal is a national water grid, increasing the quantity of water available for use nationally by about 20% and increasing China’s irrigated area by about 10%.  

The South-to-North Water Diversion Project is already well underway. The middle route, the most prominent one due to its role in feeding water to the nation’s capital, begins at the Danjiangkou Reservoir in the Hanjiang River in central China’s Hubei and runs northeastward to Beijing and Tianjin. It was completed and began supplying water in December 2014. The eastern route began supplying water in November 2013, transferring water from Jiangsu to areas including East China’s Shandong Province.  The new project will channel water from the Three Gorges Reservoir area to the Hanjiang River, a tributary of the Yangtze River. It is scheduled to be completed in nine years. 

Solving Our Water Crisis

The total estimated investment for China’s national water grid is about 2.99 trillion yuan (U.S. $470 billion). This is comparable to the $400 billion the National Infrastructure Bank Coalition proposes to allocate through HR 3339 to address the serious drought in the U.S. Southwest. 

As in China, one alternative being considered by the NIB team is to divert water from areas that have it in excess. One proposal is a pipeline to ship Mississippi River floodwaters to the parched Colorado River via a Wyoming tributary. Another option is to pump water from the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest to California via a subterranean pipeline on the floor of the Pacific Ocean – not upstream water used by Washington and Oregon residents, but water from the ocean outflow where the river feeds into the Pacific and its freshwater becomes unusable saltwater.

Those are doable alternatives, but political and regulatory obstacles remain. Ideally, sources of water would be found that are new not just to the Southwest but to the surface of the planet. This is another proposal being explored by the NIB team – to tap “deep seated water” or “primary water,” the plentiful water supplies below normal groundwater tables

Studies have found evidence of several oceans’ worth of water locked up in rock as far down as 1,000 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. (See The Smithsonian Magazine, “How the Earth’s Mantle Sends Water Up Toward the Surface,” June 2022.) This water is not part of the hydrologic cycle (clouds to rain to ground to clouds again), as shown on testing by its lack of environmental contaminants. From the time when atomic testing began in the Pacific, hydrologic water has contained traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen used as a fuel in thermonuclear bombs. Primary water shoots up tritium-free —clean, fresh and usually drinkable without filtration. 

There are many verified cases of mountaintop wells that have gushed water for decades in arid lands. This water is now being located and tapped by enterprising hydrogeologists using technological innovations like those used in other extractive industries, but without their destructive impact on the environment. For more on primary water and the promising vistas it opens up, see my earlier articles here and here

Funding Through the National Infrastructure Bank

Critically needed water and other infrastructure projects can be funded without tapping the federal budget, with funds generated through a national infrastructure bank. Unlike the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the publicly-owned bank proposed in HR 3339 is designed to be a true depository bank, which can leverage its funds as all depository banks are allowed to do: with a 10% capital requirement, it can leverage $1 in capital into $10 in loans. I 

For capitalization, the NIB will follow the model of Alexander Hamilton’s First U.S. Bank: shares in the bank will be swapped for existing U.S. bonds. The shares will earn a 2% dividend and are non-voting. Control of the bank and its operations will remain with the public, an independent board of directors, and a panel of carefully selected non-partisan experts, precluding manipulation for political ends.

The NIB is projected to lend $5 trillion over 10 years, or roughly $500 billion per year.  That means each year the NIB will have to add $50 billion in new capitalization in the form of debt for equity swaps. The incentive for investors is the extra 2% yield the NIB provides on its preferred stock, plus a government guarantee. The U.S. Postal Service, the fourth largest holder of U.S. Treasuries globally, is one possible investor. Others are pension funds and builder associations with investment portfolios, all of which need a certain number of triple-A-rated investments. NIB bonds will have a better rate of return than Treasuries, while achieving the laudable purpose of filling the critical infrastructure gap. 

To clear checks from the newly-created loan deposits, the NIB will bring in cash from incoming customer deposits, loan repayments, NIB-issued bonds, and/or borrowing from the Federal Reserve. How much cash it will need and its timing depends on how many infrastructure companies maintain their deposit accounts with the NIB.

The $5 trillion the NIB lends over 10 years will add $5 trillion to the total money supply; but the “productive” loans it will be making are the sort that do not add to price inflation. In fact, they can reduce it – by raising GDP growth, increasing the supply side of the supply-versus-demand inflation equation. 

America achieved its greatest-ever infrastructure campaign in the midst of the Great Depression. We can do that again today, and we can do it with the same machinery: off-budget financing through a government-owned national financial institution.

Ellen Brown
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown is a regular contributor to ScheerPost. She is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book is Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age and her 400+ blog articles are at


  1. But Ellen they don’t want to green our parched farmland and finance critical infrastructure. Why they don’t is certainly up for debate, but at this point it is clear that they actually want the people to suffer.

    The great reset, the fourth turning, globalization, reducing the surplus population…take your pick. The actually reason isn’t perhaps all that important, but the consequences of their actions are.

    Where are the protests? Where is the resistance? We are being led by madmen and psychopaths while the brainwashed zombie sheep willingly walk to the slaughter house.

    1. Go to Every Desert & Drill ?=Yes to Irrigate all Farmland !

      Create a TV = Tennessee Valley Project ?

  2. In 1957 Sputnik was beeping from orbit, terrorizing the “Free World”. There was an immediate response from the 1%. 1958-1968 the UC system campuses were doubled from 4 to 8. The college system added 7 campuses. Cal Tech received more fed funding. The Jet Propulsion lab was established. The UC system was already administering the National Radiation Labs at Los Alamos and Livermore and received more money. Tuition was free. From where came the money?
    We are now in another Sputnik moment. I have even heard Newsom and others say it. Todays threat is not USSR science advantage it is global warming and China’s economic advantage. Newsom added a new Tech university to the CA budget. FDR said his greatest accomplishment was saving capitalism. He was from a bankster family so knew how they think and was able to alter the system sufficiently that it avoided an all out revolt of the 99%. The alterations installed by FDR have been all but eliminated. Thankfully, we still have unemployment insurance and social security. The 1% will take that if they can. They are pathological narcissists that look upon the 99% as a sub-species.
    The methods that Ellen presents can make the USA predominant again and improve the well being of its citizens. Any who are in a construction trade should welcome these ideas. If a NIB is created all retirement funds should invest for the benefit of membership.

    1. Yes it’s disturbing that our retirement funds are managed by the likes of Blackrock and Blackstone, which are not managing them in ways that serve the people. We often seem to be funding our own demise.

  3. I don’t disagree. Political will is lacking. But it’s good to know there are doable, fundable alternatives. When things get desperate enough, hopefully political will will change.

    1. We have plenty of water, but western water is allocated through a seniority rights-based system and that’s arguably the biggest problem. Water is heavy, so piping it long distances isn’t practical. “Fossil” water more often than not has high concentrations of salt from the aquifer rock, so that’s why there are a couple of desal plants in the deserts of TX and NM. Treating saline water is not cheap. It’s a third rail to suggest that we need alternatives to allocating water through rights-based systems, but I guess they’ll have to completely fail before alternatives are considered. Check out this Stanford publication for a discussion of what that might look like:

  4. A thrilling and inspiring piece! I want to work on this for our kids and all of us, together! The examples of China are prescient and expose western lies about ‘authoritarian’ China. BTW – China peoples’ congress meets in October, no such animal in murderous Putin’s Russia. And, US MAGA -ites
    don’t want to work to solve the water crisis, they want war and conflict to reign supreme, bullies to a person they are. Thank you again and again Ellen Brown for your brilliance and leadership!

    1. danger lurks within the bubble of viewing everything through the manufactured lens of economy/economics and endlessly myopic industrial innovation/technocratic zeal – zealously drilling ever deeper is neither wise nor a solution. it’ll prove to be like ongoingly importing new invasive pests promising they’ll get rid of previously imported invasive pests while only cluster-f-cking everything up beyond recognition. eventually people will find the only solution is to stop complicating everything with our rampantly hyperactive “dominion”-driven intellectual-supremacist sensibilities. otherwise, it’s going to be a handful of “prioritized” elite survivors(musk, bezos? f-cking YUK!!!) hurtling through space in a tin can prowling for a new “rock” to colonize/pervert. ooof

      “lies about ‘authoritarian’ china”? – all the water china is diverting is in service of an isolationist/nationalist agenda(“trumpism” 101): foreign policy? – “it’s mine!!!!!!!” f-ck you & your foreign policy!!!!

      china’s mass-engineering of environmental, social, domestic & foreign political chaos/instability/catastrophe/war?:

      “China’s neighbors in South Asia fear the outsized role that China has in controlling the water in their nations”

      “An estimated 70% of China’s rivers and lakes are polluted, helping to explain why more than a quarter of China’s surface water is unfit for human consumption.”

      “The environment has been reeling from rapid industrialization resulting In extreme pollution and massive deterioration of the environment.”

      “I searched for reasons — uncontrolled development is one — but the source, the plateaus, and mountain ranges are drying up. There is no water anymore.” Zhang Junheng, Chinese conservationist.

      “China has water shortages due to some inconvenient truths”

      “Over the past twenty years, China has lost 28,000 rivers and other surface water sources; they just vanished.”!!!

      1. Sadly, that is the truth. I kinda guess you are young and really fuckin’ exasperated. Bump up against an ancient old fart of 79, who is still an unbeaten street fighter, and who uses 24,000 year old Aboriginal wisdom to fight the bastards with, and it might counter-balance your youth. That is what shoulder-to-shoulder fighting means. Connect on and join the Warriors.

  5. “Those are doable alternatives . . . ”

    Ha, ha, ha. We will move water and put it where we want it.

    I quit reading Ellen Brown weeks ago because she drives me crazier than I would be otherwise, but when I saw the headline of this article I decided to see what she had to say. This time Ellen made me laugh out loud instead of breaking my heart with her typical vacuum of scientific knowledge or even natural understanding of climate and how the biological world works.

    No, we aren’t going to ship water to the western US from the Mississippi, or from the Columbia to the San Joaquin valley in California to keep this shiteshow of capitalism and self-worship going. First of all, Oregon is in a drought, too, most of it “extreme” drought, lower only than the “exceptional” category. The entire Pacific coast is in drought. Oregon didn’t want to give California water when it had water. Worse, it is likely not even a drought, but a permanent aridification of the region that will get much worse in the near future.

    Certainly, such a feat is as possible as any other engineering feat, and engineering can do a lot. However, the climate doesn’t have engineering solutions, and I already know that such engineering would produce its own terrible, insurmountable environmental problems and would do damage in both its construction and existence. It could likely support some farming but would not sustain the land as a whole and support everything else that is needed for a healthy environment, like natural flora and fauna. We already know these things. They shouldn’t have to be stated, but here we are, needing to state them . . .

    Humans cannot live that way – transporting our manmade problem of too much water thousands of miles to our other manmade problem of not nearly enough water – and have a future. Period. We don’t have a future, but if it were possible for humanity to survive, we can’t do things like you are suggesting. The Earth has its own rules about what is required to support life. It also has real limits on how much humans can alter ecosystems, and frankly, it’s not very much. Ms. Brown writes as those natural rules and limits don’t actually exist, and her “solutions” always seem to require that they not exist. Water projects like Ms. Brown suggests are a massive alteration of thousands of miles of multiple ecosystems and such projects ALWAYS create their own devastating environmental problems. Also, the fragility of such a system where a single failure could stop the flow of water to tens of millions of people, especially in an age of environmental collapse and extreme weather events that disrupt human systems of supply, is more than questionable. It looks like the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result because that’s what it is.

      1. Thank you for responding. So, we’re going to drill down 1000 km for water, and just like fracking we will go from the terror of no water to a glut-abundance of water. Oh, happy day! That does sound brilliant. Kind of like nuclear power sounds brilliant to people.

        What could possibly go wrong? It’s all chemical and pollution free, I assume, unlike fracking, and the land won’t collapse from the loss of water like it does from groundwater (the people proposing this know this for sure), and the added water flowing in to the ocean will help with increasing sea level we’re seeing from the other natural systems we screwed up, along with the added water vapor that is yet another ghg affecting global warming. You didn’t address those things in the article, so I’m assuming it’s either magically free of miserable consequences and pollution/contaminants, or you don’t know because you don’t address those things.

        At least they’d have some water for the town-killing fires they are going to continue to see into the future, eh?

        LIke I wrote, Ms. Brown, the Earth has its own rules and limits that it requires to be able to support life. Humans aren’t going to live being the only thing alive on the planet. We need insects(!) or we won’t survive as a species. Our Frankenstein approach to the planet, treating it like it’s something we can remake as we please, altering it as we please, putting it together in new ways with alien parts, has brought us to this point. It’s our problem, not our answer. We must have surface water for the rest of the plants and animals and insects that we need to survive, because that’s how all Life on the planet has evolved for the past 500 million years – with surface water. We won’t get very far or very many years forward without it. I promise. If you don’t believe me, try believing the science; it’s brilliant.

      2. I value these kinds of discussions but it all kinda falls apart when respondents quote “science” when they proselytise anthropogenic global warming theory. I noted one hysterical scientist wailing over the sea rising and flooding east Virginia at a rate of 3 mm per year and nobody thought to tell this poor woman that the entire eastern and southern coast of the US is sinking at the rate of 3 mm per year.

        And I have yet to encounter a scientist correcting the media-generated miscomprehension that the sea is rising and engulfing the Kiribati Islands, when in fact they are sinking.

        It’s now almost a knee-jerk reaction for me to respond negatively to the word “science” because what follows is invariably anything but. Please people, keep your beliefs to yourselves and let’s just stick to resolving real problems. Back to you, Ellen…

      3. What happens when rivers stop flowing to oceans, Ellen? Nothing? It’s just all good? How many species die from it? My science readings say that freshwater biological life is among the most severely impacted on Earth, with a full 83% of freshwater species either by species or by numbers now extinct globally. That’s what diverting water and putting up dams does to ecosystems and biodiversity.

        All of this has happened in only the last couple of centuries. Indeed, even one century ago the whole planet was vastly healthier and far more alive.

        Derek Jensen has an article on his site that says – dams or fish, pick one. The World Wildlife Fund stated last year, “Nowhere is the world’s biodiversity crisis more acute than in freshwater ecosystems. Around 35% of wetlands have been lost in the past 50 years and only 1/3 of the world’s large rivers are still free flowing.

        I have a nagging feeling that you’re not seeing the whole picture. Again.

      4. Do you know that fracking wastewater is often disposed of by injecting it into deep aquifers underlying potable water aquifers? Just thought you might be interested.
        Really, fossil water isn’t a solution, except maybe in limited cases. Water rights, especially in the west, is a complicated subject but I suggest that people learn the basics of how water is allocated before assuming that we don’t have enough.

    1. No, Washington and Oregon don’t need the Columbia River water that flows into the ocean. If they needed it, they would have used it, and the mighty Columbia would just be a trickle where it flows into the Pacific; but instead it’s a huge torrent. Wa. and Or. would never miss a fraction of it going to Ca. It may be dry in Eastern Wa. and Or., but there is no shortage of irrigation water for Columbia Basin and Yakima Valley fruit and vegetables. There is a super-abundance, with plenty of melting snow in the Cascade mountains supplying the streams. Our nation’s food supply would benefit greatly by piping water to Ca. it would be for the greater good. If Wa. and Or. are too stingy to share, they should be overridden by the national govt. If states can’t cooperate on something like this, this nation is done for. Ellen Brown’s suggestion is very sensible.

      1. There is a super abundance? That’s not what the US drought monitor says. I’m afraid I have to go with the assessments from the science, not you.

      2. (to Tupe) There is a superabundance of water in the Columbia because there was a superabundance of snow that fell on the Cascade Mountains last winter — double the normal snowpack, I believe. It’s almost always really dry (“drought”) in Eastern Washington (and Oregon) in the summer. I know; I grew up there. Weather expert Cliff Mass from the University of Washington ( wrote this spring that the national drought maps are often wrong and exaggerated, showing Eastern Washington as being in drought when it definitely is not. So “the science” is controversial.

    2. hi Tupe
      for examples verifying the sociopathic or nihilistic or whatever sort of folly this is that you’re speaking to, view article links in my response to Bill Nelson’s comment above

      thanks for speaking up

      1. You’re welcome, Dan. She seems like a really nice person, but Ellen Brown is a vast black hole of understanding when it comes environmental science. She completely lost me weeks ago when she declared that things like cryptocurrency would “ideally” be self-regulating.

        Please, someone, anyone, give me one single example of anything humanmade (other than our own children) that is “self-regulating.” Help me out. Because I’m 70 years old and I’ve never encountered one such thing.

        If I’m going to devolve into out-there, untethered insanity-fantasy, I’m sure as hell going to have a better crazy desire than self-regulating cryptocurrencies.

    3. the projects promoted here are f-ing atrocious. AND, drilling for “primary water,” ugh. big mistake, unless the aim is to destabilize the entire planet. fracking already = unprecedented numbers of seismic events in areas where virtually none had ever previously been recorded not to mention destabilization of infrastructure from earth-settling and ever more frequent random massive sink hole events. “earthquake” would very likely be a willfully blind understatement of what repercussions of extracting massive amounts of water – that is not “part of the hydrologic cycle (clouds to rain to ground to clouds again)” – would likely look like

      check this out

      my best guess WAS that “humanity” misuses/consumes a total global amount around 2 TRILLION gallons of h2o DAILY. turns out

      The World Counts – “Each year, the worldwide population uses about 151.85 trillion cubic feet of freshwater. Are these numbers giving you a headache? You’re not alone. Here’s a simple comparison. That amount of water is comparable to 50 Olympic swimming pools evaporating each second.” –

      in other words, it’s more like 152 TRILLION cubic feet(1 cu/ft = 7.48gal) or 1,140,000,000,000+ gallons of fresh water annually or, 3.125+ TRILLION gallons DAILY. un’f’cking’believable

      now imagine what pumping similar quantities of “primary h2o” might do to the planet. ugh

      so please, wanna-be geniuses around the world, give us all a f-cking break from the psychotic mental hyperactivity

    4. This system only lets me respond to your initial comment, not the replies to replies, but this is a reply to something lower down. Primary water is clean, abundant (there are oceans’ worth) and doesn’t lead to subsidence or fracking-style pollution. Read up on it, e.g. here — But the point of my article is that we can get infrastructure built though we can’t get Congress to fund it with tax money, through the off-budget device of a National Infrastructure Bank. As with the 1930s Public Works Administration, questions of what to build and how will be left to panels of experts with a public mandate.

  6. As always, an incisive, well-researched article by Ellen Brown. We know how to green our land, as she points out. We know how to finance infrastructure projects, as she argues over and over again. We know how to have peace on earth, we know how to eliminate poverty and hunger. We know how to bring democracy to the Third World–we just need to stop installing fascist governments everywhere and always. And we know that America’s Federal Reserve is a private cartel that serves the interests of bankers, not our interests. But the criminals who control the West are not interested in any of these, and are too ignorant to know that their own children are in peril. They only want money and power. After them, the deluge. For them, we are serfs. Short of a strategically thought-out revolution, nothing will ever be done.

  7. I , Re: Posted on LinkedIn , Ellen is someone , I Respect & Trust

    Only , I , wonder About any more Spending till Inflation comes Down

    By my Outlook When Powell gets Like Reagans Federal Reserve Chairman

    Search instead for Reagan Federal Reserve Chairmen , Paul Adolph Volcker Jr.( Out of the Gate Hit 20%)

    But Today , Powell , Hits Additional 5% to 10% increase MHO

    (Coming in Small Steps after Nov., 3rd ) (My Guess )

  8. Ellen

    Water transport is viable if the energy used is gravity, and gravity exceeds friction, but that water is part of an existing ecosystem and the price may exceed the advantage. For example, China’s capture of Himalayan water will injure and kill millions downstream of the seven great rivers that vast range gives birth to.

    China knows this and China does not care.

    As you know way better than others, control of capital is in the hands of an elite that does not care about saving lives but is dedicated to eliminating 80% of the world’s population, for reasons that are fraudulent but nevertheless serve the neo-fuedalism and eugenics agenda. They will terminally obstruct such expenditure.

    And with 100% control of the media, they control 60% of American thinking. Their influence on public outlook and belief systems is apparent even in this comments section, where submission to AGW theory evidently prevails.

    However, from a hypothetical perspective, your economic management suggestions are, as always, worth lodging in the arsenal for when we win the prerequisite war against the 1%. Then, and only then, can we use your valid insights for financial reconstruction.

    But this brings me to the most pressing problem: The 1% has planned well, and well in advance. The City of London had already charted India’s transition from colony to oligarchy by war’s end. As always when the Rothschilds are involved, other concomitant goals were sought. One of these was the recruitment of a rather nasty little Indian lawyer name Mohandas Gandhi, who was nurtured and guided to embrace “Non-violent peaceful protest”, an ethic rewarded and validated by India’s 1947 independence. Hollywood even made an epic movie to ensure we “get it”.

    To reinforce this new ethic, Mattin Luthor King was similarly exploited, protected, and guided.

    That both men were assassinated, creating martyrdom/sainthood, was always a part of the plan. And now we see how effective this ploy has been, with millions of citizens convinced that appealing to the compassion and humanity of psychopaths will melt their hearts and cause them to abandon the mRNA mandate/WEF/AGW/global famine/proxy war agenda.

    Betcha you ain’t got a solution for that one Ellen. But I have.

  9. Just in case there is any confusion, I regard Ellen Brown as one of the few bright lights on the horizon… a thinker… a reader… a fighter.

    Few Americans realised what was happening to their country until Tom Woods and Ellen Brown challenged conventional thinking more than a decade ago. I argued with both back then, and I will argue with them into the future. Out of this debate will come greater clarification of where we are and where we need to go.

    History will prove which of us were right, but that does not matter to me, and should not matter to anyone else. If we march shoulder to shoulder, we will win. Meanwhile, I will always challenge great minds.

    1. Ellen has come up with several good ideas, and both her public banking and infrastructure bank ideas are excellent. The only problem with them is they aren’t the operant ideas of the money system and the economy and hence they are only reforms…instead of the operant/paradigm changing ideas and aligned policies that will resolve the deepest problems that have grown up around the current paradigm and change the character of the entire pattern. No one but me is analyzing money and the economy on the paradigmatic level. I’ve learned from all of Ellen, Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Steven Zarlenga, C. H. Douglas et al. They’re all excellent theorists and virtually all of their reforms can be incorporated into the economy and a movement that could herd the entirety of the political apparatus toward economic and ecological sanity…if they would just recognize and unite their efforts with the new monetary paradigm. It’s the pattern that is specifically and ultimately important. Reforms are wonderful, but it’s the deep implemented simplicities like new paradigm concepts that really matter.

      Anyone want to ask about this subject, I’m happy to respond. I’ve already got policy fixes and rebuttals to every complexity or objection that has ever come up regarding the new paradigm.

      1. I do not know the other economists but Steve Keen derided my door-to-door surveys which showed 17% Australian unemployment while he believed the 3.4% garbage put out by government, albeit “Slightly exaggerated”. And if you want an actual working model for banking. look at the Commonwealth Bank in Australia up until it was privatised and split in two , one half becoming the BIS Rothschild ancho in the Australian economy.

        Ellen has studied this too.

      2. So what are your thoughts about a 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale combined with a $1000/mo. universal dividend at the age of 18 for life which would guarantee every adult $2000/mo. of purchasing power enabling us to eliminate almost all of the payroll taxes every working person and every enterprise pay, thus integrating the self interests of traditionally opposed political constituencies of consumer and business as well as accomplishing the integration of the most treasured economic goals of both the left and right (the right: tax relief and lots of demand andthe left: guaranteed economic/financial security and the absolute end of inflation) ?

  10. Pingback: - The Power Hour
  11. Other science, Ms. Brown, predicts that by mid-century pretty much all of Texas and Arizona, possibly all of Nevada and New Mexico, and much of California (where the crops are grown), will routinely see temperatures that reach 125F for weeks in the summer. That’s Death Valley temperatures. They don’t call it Death Valley just because it’s dry, Ms. Brown.

    I suspect California will get there much sooner than mid-century. I was born and grew up in the San Joaquin valley. We saw 120 every summer in the southern central valley even in the 50s and 60s. The central valley will get hotter than 125 degrees, I have no doubt.

    You’re going to need more than water to grow food in the southwestern US in the future. You need a stable climate that doesn’t kill the plants with extreme heat, which heat alone can do and is doing now, and a near-infinite list of other things, like pollinators.

    Speaking of which, even our domestic bees are having difficulty living in the conditions we are creating, and recent years have seen mass hive deaths because when we send them out into our poisoned world it kills them.

    See how this stuff goes? So many things connected to and dependent upon everything else.

  12. Dear Ms. Brown,
    Another project that could be considered, which wouldn’t require a major investment is to re-route snow from northern areas that have gotten an unusual amount snow to the southwestern states that are having droughts.
    In the early 1990s, western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota got an extreme amount of snow. North Dakota applied for Federal Emergency funds for “snow removal,” although the snow wasn’t removed from the area at all: it was merely shuffled around the counties that were afflicted. At the same time, western Texas was suffering from such a severe drought that the cattle were dying. It would have been a useful Federal plan to remove the snow from one area that had too much to another state that needed that resource.
    In the spring, when the snow melted, ND/MN counties in the Red River valley suffered severe floods, which called for more Federal Emergency funding.
    I wondered why FEMA didn’t load tanker railroad cars with the excess snow and remove it from the Red River location to Texas, where they needed it.
    Is this country united, or not?

    1. Thanks, sounds promising. No, we’re not united. The Chinese do a better job of just seeing the problem and fixing it. We’re a melting pot of cultures and ideas, which leads to frictions; but diversity is also one of our strengths. The challenge is getting us on the same page sufficiently for fast, efficient, equitable action.

  13. This article is an example of the same type of thinking that got America in trouble with over use of resources in the first place. EG: Diverting water from the Mississippi river to the west is about as insane as you can get. It’s like if there is some river remaining that still has water, we should go and drain it in the name of growth capitalism and wreck the planet even faster.

  14. Guy McPherson, PhD, is famous in environmental science for predicting the near-term extinction of humans from “abrupt” and “irreversible” ecological collapse from global warming. I don’t know if you’ve heard of him, Ms. Brown, but he is a conservation and evolutionary biologist, and all of his controversial work is based on clearly quoted, peer-reviewed scientific literature, including but not limited to the IPCC’s.

    Conservation biology is the study of three things, according to Dr. McPherson. It is the study of how species come into being through evolution, the critical “habitat” that they occupy that sustains their existence, and the causes of species’ extinction.

    I have issues with McPherson’s personality, but not his credentials, methods or sources.

    In his most recent essay on Weekly Hubris, Guy writes, “In addition to reduced albedo and increased methane, there are two other factors that will lead to rapid temperature rise at the global level: 1) loss of aerosol masking, about which I have written previously in this space and 2) additional water-vapor feedback. According to a July 2015 description offered by Skeptical Science, ‘water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So, if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C.’”

    Notice how “water vapor” is a critical component of what is occurring in connection with climate disruption. Water vapor as a GHG (greenhouse gas) is commonly discussed in the current scientific work on global warming, primarily but not only because of its warming effects, but because the overall amount of water now in the environment from the melting of the cryosphere. This is a major environmental and economic issue due to the increased water causing sea level rise (SLR) that is threatening coastal cities everywhere (especially Miami). The Arctic ice cap in the summer is almost a third of its size in 1979, and in the winter it is close to half of what it was at that time. Scientists live in fear of a “blue ocean event,” where all the ice disappears in the summer, something that will happen very soon. Capitalists want an Arctic shipping passage between North American and North Eurasia.

    All of it, of course, is contributing to the storms and hurricanes and floods.

    Ms. Brown’s solution to the farming and habitat problem we have created by turning the American West into a wasteland-desert- actually the entire country west of Ohio is in drought of some form, people should check out the drought monitor for themselves – is to annually pump billions of acre feet of water that has always been deep underground onto the surface ground, and consequently into the atmosphere, and the rising oceans.

    What could possibly go wrong? No one knows. But we do have lots of evidence of the unexpected disastrous consequences of our ignorance, our hubris, and our shortsightedness with such schemes in the past. We also have so many problems from exactly such creative hubris that we are literally in a mass extinction event, one we likely won’t survive much longer. It’s all happening much, much faster than predicted even a few years ago, like by almost a century faster.

    Western humanism is the worst religion people ever came up with. Humans and human creativity are a lousy god to worship and believe in.

    1. Asking what could go wrong was rhetorical, and stating that no one knows was in jest. Obviously, what will go wrong is that adding billions (which it will be, if not trillions) of acre feet of water to the surface of the planet will increase the degree and rate of global warming, and increase the drowning of the other places are receiving excess water, as well as add to the ferocity of the storms and hurricanes.

      1. I miswrote – drilling for deep underground water that has never been on the surface of the planet would add a likely 10 million acre feet a year to the farming regions of the southwest. However, if successful, drilling for water would not be limited to those areas, and could reach much higher amounts. As I wrote above, the entire US west of Ohio is abnormally dry or in drought, and the result of such technology will be its application anywhere we want to have water, which will be a lot of the country, even if it exacerbates and speeds overall global warming and planetary extinction.

        Please pardon the bad writing/info.

  15. Does that mean you approve? Here’s an article on it that is more recent than mine:

    Anyway, again, my area is funding; I was just writing that we can research and fund what we need. We needn’t be limited by budget constraints or fears of inflation, if we do it through an infrastructure bank that funds productive (not speculative) enterprises. Supply and demand go up together, keeping prices stable.

    1. With genuine care for your feelings as I would any other person’s, Ms. Brown, and respect for your intentions, it shows that your area of expertise is funding, and not measurable, environmental science.

      Adding fresh water to the surface environment is a terrible idea, especially at the amounts needed and that will be used, if only because of ocean acidification, but that’s not the only reason. It would be better to build a thousand mile canal. Ocean acidification is occurring because of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans, and introduction of massive amounts of fresh water from the melting cryosphere, i.e., the ice caps and the glaciers around the world that are melting faster than any time in geologic history.

      Marine life is dying because they are starving due to acidification, along with pollution and human plunder. Your probably aren’t reading about it, but there are mass die-offs of marine species taking place because of starvation. Life began in the oceans. Complex life won’t exist anywhere at all with dead oceans. That’s just how the planet and life on Earth works.

      Not to leave out that the current rate of extinction is happening thousands of times faster than the worst extinction event in geologic history – the Permian. Even the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs took a few thousand years to complete its destruction, and that did not approach the level of the Permian extinction loss of life. The human-caused rate of death and destruction we are in now has no comparison in all of Earth’s 4 billion year history.

      The Earth isn’t a machine. We think it is because that’s our culture and it’s a worldview we are taught, but it’s a deluded worldview. The Earth may not be an organism with consciousness, like some people think, but it functions like a single, closed organism. We can’t abuse and rearrange our bodies, working ourselves to death while consuming poisons and trash, moving major arteries around and pumping extra blood some places while choking off supply to other place in our bodies. We can’t treat the Earth that way, either.

      But we do treat the Earth that way.

      And you promote doing more of the same madness that got us here – drilling 1000 km underground for massive amounts of fresh water, ultimately millions of acre feet annually, that have never existed on the surface of the planet, and pumping it onto the surface for human use.

      Ms. Brown, you are under the delusion that human beings are actually intelligent enough to do these things, and that is your insane humanism. Until humans start pooping the resources that the Earth makes for us out of our backsides, we needed and still need to have a lot more respect for the planet.

      We don’t make anything. We rearrange the things we find in the world around us, but we don’t originate anything that exists. We can’t make one thing that is alive except for our own children. Unlike the planet, which supports lifeforms still uncounted and unknown, every thing humans make is dead. But in our culture, we are taught that it’s brilliant to be making all this garbage, like we’re always surprised at our own intelligence.

      The second half of an ice cube melts much faster than the first half, especially if the temperature is getting warmer. The second half of an ecosystem dies much faster than the first half did if the killing conditions persist, and we’ve killed more than half of every ecosystem on the planet in about one hundred years.

      This is reality: humans could never trash the planet much more than the Native Americans and other indigenous people around the world did, and have a future. Scientists say we never could have farming at all, but I’m not sure I believe that. If we controlled our populations, we could have lived like the Amish for thousands of years. Or, we could have had a civilization for thousands of years if we lived like the Kogi.

      This civilization is not going to make to the end of this century, and most life on Earth is not going to survive much past that. That’s because when the power grid goes down, there are more than 450 nuclear power plants that will go down. There are no solutions to what we have done, and certainly not financial solutions.

      When you can pay your lungs to breathe air, and that air that can be paid to self-regulate (that was what the planet did for us), then financial solutions will be an answer. At the moment, however, there are no solutions for our destructive way of life.

      1. It seems to me that humanity’s biggest problem at the moment is scientists who cannot differentiate between computer modelling and actual science. Their second error is to conclude that anything stated by a scientist is science.

        We now have investment bankers creating the IPCC and using mindless technotrons to declare lucrative wars on democracy and freedom in the name of science. We have doctors claiming mRNA jabs are “safe and effective — trust the science”; and climate scientists saying human activity is destroying the planet so we must clear the surface of CO2… “trust the science”.

        CO2 is plant food. We need more, not less, to generate reforestation, which will also delimit excess rain runoff which damages mangroves, corals, and oceans. The Jurassic had five times more CO2. Get over it.

        It is both trite and hypocritical to accuse Helen of reaching beyond her qualified realm of knowledge, and then postulating scenarios that are patently absurd and based entirely on computer modeling.

        Fact: glaciers and ice sheets are melting because they accumulated during the Little Ice Age and are very naturally melting. The seas are not rising. Hysterical wailing that the East US Coast is being inundated by the oceans (“the seas are rising”) is what happens when mediocre scientists go beyond their own realms of intelligence and narrow knowledge base. Fact: the east coast is sinking. It has always been sinking. Get over it.

        Finally, let me say that I have really had enough of emotional bookworms blaming humanity for environmental woes. It is not we, humanity, but monolithic corporations who are doing the damage. These are owned by powerful but psychopathic plutocrats whose names we know well: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Gates, and so on. Eliminate them, break up their empires, and democratise their organisations, and then we will solve the problems.

        And Ellen is perfectly entitled to analyse the potential of reticulating water. This is science: Hypothesise and discuss.

  16. Here’s a fact sheet on primary water with copious recent endnotes:

    Definition: Primary Water (PW) is water that originates miles below earth’s surface, regenerates constantly, and is forced up by pressure from below through rock fissures.1 It is normally a separate source from that replenished by atmospheric, or hydrologic rain cycles. PW can issue as hot steam, or it can condense below ground to recharge nearby aquifers. When PW water reaches the surface on its own, it is given a very technical term…spring water! Modern hydrology theory generally teaches that groundwater aquifers recharge only from the hydrologic cycle, but that is changing as evidence of PW mounts.

    Proofs of PW: Primary Water tests differently from nearby groundwater, with no: tritium2 (a radioactive isotope present in all above-ground water supplies since atomic testing and nuclear power generation began), bacteria, salt, or other typical groundwater pollutants; and is potable without filtration when captured in its purest state.3 Primary Water emanates from locations not generally associated with fresh water sources such as in desert oases; springs at the top of mountains; deep structures severed by mine shafts; and vents of pure, supercritical water ejecting from ocean floors.
    Water vapor is the most common constituent (over 80%) in all samples of volcanic gases. PW’s components – hydrogen and oxygen – are found locked in crystalline minerals created under pressure far below ground, in Earth’s hydrous zone in the upper mantel (shown in blue on the upper chart).4

    Abundant Supply: Primary Water is so abundant that it has the potential to end drought as we know it. PW is constantly being manufactured within the Earth, so it is a virtual endless source of water. By comparison, hydrologic water is more finite and fluctuates in relation to available precipitation and rates of extraction. Hydrologists at the National Geographic Society estimate U.S. groundwater reserves to be at least 33,000 trillion gallons — equal to the amount discharged into the Gulf of Mexico

    by the Mississippi River in the past 200 years. Other estimates project that Earth’s mantle has enough water to supply consumption needs for 6,000 years at today’s rates of use.5

    Finding Primary Water: PW is readily locatable using sophisticated survey technology that pinpoints “fractured rock aquifer” systems.6 The technology and methodology deployed by Primary Water Technologies (PWT) and its global partners comprises: GIS layering and 3-D modeling, radiometrics and passive seismic field data collection. It successfully locates plentiful, sustainable water nearly 100% of the time. A video capturing the innovative techniques used to pinpoint PW at a drill-site in Kanarraville, Utah can be seen on the PWT website.7

    Rule of Capture: English Common Law, extended to the U.S., holds that landowners who extract or “capture” groundwater from a well within the subsurface of their land acquire absolute ownership of the water, even if it is drained from the subsurface of another’s land.8 Unless limited by treaty or law, this creates an incentive for owners to drill as many wells as possible on their land so as to extract groundwater before their neighbors can capture it. Very dense drilling can result in dissipation of the pressure within an aquifer, land subsidence, and contaminated drinking water, such as has occurred in agricultural regions along the Southern Ogallala Aquifer, Central California, and the Texas/New Mexico border. During times of extreme drought, some states have responded by cutting off water supplies and new drilling to large water users like farmers and ranchers,9 and/or by commencing “tolling” of groundwater captured on private land.10

    Sustainability: By comparison, Primary Water use does not affect ground water levels. It can be identified on both smaller and very large parcels of private land, even if they are relatively flat and without obvious rock fissures to begin a search. The rule of thumb is that in 100 acres you can expect to locate as many as a dozen fracture zones. Examples proving Primary Water’s sustainability include:
    • Lake Elsinore, California, which survives today thanks to three primary water wells drilled over 60 years ago, that have not depleted groundwater flowing to neighboring properties.11
    • Use of PW drilling in deserts with no obvious water supplies, to grow trees, promote increased rain precipitation, and prevent further desertification.12 And,
    • Newest discovery13 that not only is ocean water dragged down into earth’s mantle by subducting tectonic plates, but it is also brought back to the surface, keeping ocean levels stable, and continually replenishing quantities of primary water sourced on land.

    Policy Recommendation: Thus, the case can be made to state legislators, groundwater sustainability agencies, and conservationists, that – upon presentation of data-based reports like those pictured above – primary water sited wells should retain unencumbered right of capture, and receive drilling permits without restriction, curtailment, or tolling of water usage.

    4 and
    5, “New Water for a Thirsty World” (1960) by Dr. Michael Salzman, professor of economics at the University of Southern California, and .
    7 and

    11 and
    12,, and
    13 180980276/

    1. That’s a lot of links about things people want for continued living in deserts which never could support their numbers to begin with, but there isn’t anything in that entire bunch of links that addresses how such addition of primary water will affect the environment and global warming, increased water vapor (if that is the case, which it would be if the cryosphere melting is doing the same), or ocean acidification.

      Oh, look! The person who says this water could make drought a thing of the past, Dr. Michael Salzman, is an economist, not a biologist or environmental expert. This alternate reality, intellectual creativity and Frankenstein engineering has worked really well for us for a little while, until we ran out of new land to invade and steal and lay waste to, but that’s over now. Now we need a new planet, but we aren’t going to get one.

      Love your children and grandchildren the best you can. They have a really bad, short future ahead of them.

    2. One example of what I am talking about in connection with the imbalance in the environment and water is news about the floods in Pakistan at this time. The Guardian reports: “Aid workers have appealed for urgent donations to fight the ‘absolutely devastating’ impact of flooding in Pakistan, as new satellite images appeared to confirm that a third of the country is now underwater. ”

      One third of Pakistan is under water. Pakistan has a population of over 220 million people, and one third of its land is underwater, and it’s not the mountainous parts where most people don’t live. Of note, Pakistan has the densest concentration of high mountains in the world.

      When you consider doing what you suggest, the introduction of millions, likely billions of acre feet of fresh water onto the surface of the world, you aren’t just affecting the desert you are trying to save – the one that is dying because of all your other good ideas about how to live on the land. You are affecting every part of the globe. That’s why the entire planet is rapidly becoming uninhabitable, is because we keep making cosmically fatal, self-centered and short-sighted changes to the planet, almost all of them from engineering (God, how I hate engineers) that we aren’t smart enough to be engaging in. We think we’re that smart, but we aren’t. And the planet cannot take how we treat it and still support life.

      Keep at this obliviousness to environmental science if you want to, or if you must because you cannot understand it any better. But if you do, at least admit that you are trying to extend this unsustainable way of life for some people in the short term at the expense of the whole place in the long term, exactly like we live now, because that’s what your “solutions” are for.

      I can live with that because we’re doomed. Hell, yes, green the desert. But be honest, if you can, and admit that it’s no solution except for maybe a decade or two.

      McPherson says we don’t have that long. He says we are going to have a blue ocean event, a massive methane release — from the two ginormous sources bubbling in Africa and the Siberian ice shelf — that will warm the planet a full degree Celsius within a matter of weeks, with worldwide crop failures the following year, and that will happen within five years.

      I don’t know if it will happen that soon, but it will happen. That’s the kind of thing that’s going on in the real world out here and there is no amount of money that can fix it. There is no amount of human greatness that can fix it.

      Thanks for reading, if you do, God bless you, and so long. I won’t critique your work anymore. There isn’t anything else left to say. People either get it, or they don’t.

  17. This article is a must for America and for the American people. Supply and demand interweave, but the missing link is “money”. But endless debates keep going, ad infinitum than action.

  18. Public banks ought to be capitalized by debt-free money issued by the U.S. Treasury and directed to meet the social welfare and infrastructure needs of communities. As those who embrace modern monetary theory argue (an argument with which I concur), taxation is needed far more to achieve social policy outcomes far more than simply to raise revenue.

    Climate change is quickly altering the pattern of weather, the amount of rainfall that falls each year and the frequency of rainfall-caused disasters. It is clear that some communities will soon no longer be livable without enormous investment in flood control on the order of what is being done in The Netherlands.

    The oceans are rising and will continue to rise even as we struggle to reduce carbon emissions and recool the atmosphere. One of the only practical short-run strategies we have is to use our technological capability to begin right away to dig channels that can channel ocean water inland to those areas that can take the water. This is not a perfect solution but it is a strategy that might give us the time to act on longer term solutions.

    1. Go out and measure. The oceans are not rising. Kiribati is sinking. SE US is sinking. Get facts straight, not fed straight propaganda.

  19. The Thwaites glacier is holding back global coastal devastation by only the skin of its teeth

    “Sea levels worldwide could rise by as much as 16 feet, submerging cities such as Lagos, Shanghai, London, New York City, and Miami.”

    “The Thwaites Glacier itself has concerned scientists for decades. As early as 1973, researchers questioned whether it was at high risk of collapse. Nearly a decade later, they found that — because the glacier is grounded to a seabed, rather than to dry land — warm ocean currents could melt the glacier from underneath, causing it to destabilize from below.”

    “And then in 2021, a study showed the Thwaites Ice Shelf, which helps to stabilize the glacier and hold the ice back from flowing freely into the ocean, could shatter within five years.”

    that’s a lot of freshwater flowing into the ocean. maybe maybe “they” or you or whosever got da $ch-ching$ should pump all the freshwater run off, from all the collapsing glaciers, at its entry-point into the ocean and pump it in pipelines along the ocean floor to a deserving powerhouse economy near you…or me or…idk, should we start flipping coins or just star drilling?

    stop poisoning surface water

  20. Also should be noted that the lack of funding for infrastructure is not just simply because a bipartisan congress is gridlocked. It is that every republican and two sellout dems in the senate had continuously blocked any real attempts for the original build back better bill and stripped it down from the initial proposal of $6 trillion down and down to less than 2 trillion and then just let it fizzle. The money coulda, woulda, shoulda been there if not for the sellout republican obstructionists whose donors are fossil fuel companies, pharma and religious freaks! Seems like water resource ownership will get to play too.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: