If you must do A to be (practically) able to fo B, then, in comon parlance, doing A "pays for" B. The government must tax to be (practically) able to spend more than some amount of money. Thus, the taxes "pay for" spending above that amount. That the constraint is practical (i.e., inflation-based) rather than literal (run-out-of-money-based) is way beyond what the average voter needs to understand.

Under our political system, people don't need to understand how government works. They have representatives for that. Those representatives need to understand, and not lie about, how the government works. Sadly, today, most of those representatives do not understand, and too many of them do understand and lie about it. But no, people don't vote for policies; they vote for people.

Some change starts from the top, and some change starts from the bottom.

MMT replaces budgetary constraints with capacity constraints. That's a big deal in deflationary periods when the technology of supply has outstripped the technology of demand. But that context is necessary to make the claims of MMT less provocative. Getting to inflation is a subsequence article, or relegating it to the notes, is a mistake. You can go into inflation in depth later, but unless you introduce it as the anchor to MMT, you appear to claiming to have found a free lunch when you have really only found one that is available at a low marginal cost.