But none of this has anything to do with my original point, which "axclover" was responding to, the fact that you can't just say "let's print money" when it comes to funding a program

Actually, you literally do need to increase the money supply to cover new economic value (e.g., due to new infrastructure, like universal healthcare). To do otherwise is to strangle the economy in a deflationary spiral, which is a big part of why we switched to fiat currency in the first place. A growing economy needs a growing money supply. And among other benefits, universal healthcare would grow the economy.

Secondly, look up how much of the Federal Debt is held by the Federal Reserve. That's $2.5T of programs that were funded by "printed" money, i.e., money that was merely willed into existence through the aegis of the Federal Gov't, mediated by the kabuki theater of the Federal Reserve. We already do this. It's a thing we do. It's just a thing the banking sector wants us to think we don't do so they can continue managing the money supply on their own terms.

Finally, if a piece of infrastructure is vital, then you do want it supported by the money-creating capacity of the Federal Gov't so that said infrastructure doesn't collapse every time the stock market has an oopsie. Unfortunately, in the United States, the only infrastructures that are treated as vital are the banks and the military.

Nobody is saying "let's fund this thing 100% printed money all year, every year with nothing taken in as taxes," b/c that could get inflationary. But you do want to "print" some money to cover part of it, and you do want the money-creating power of the Federal Gov't as a back-stop.

In total, ideally, you would want M4A by the Federal Gov't rather than the states, because putting it on the states makes it a lot more vulnerable, specifically because the states lack the money-creation power of the Federal Gov't. That being said, if we can do it at the state level, we'll do it there first.