[groby_b]

Given that California can't print money, why do you think those checks are "printing money"?

And no, it's not a "sneaky backdoor". It's the government doing what it should do, tighten financial inequality gaps. And preventing unnecessary suffering. We're still a society, we occasionally take care of the weaker people amongst us. (Frankly, not often enough)

And "without real oversight" is... you're aware this is going through the normal process of fund allocation, is reported widely in the press, and is part of the data that voters can take into account next round, no? It has just as much oversight as any other government spending. (Arguably more than some federal programs)

I get that fiscally conservative folks might disagree with this, and we can certainly debate merits. But "printing money" and "without oversight" are empty slogans without basis in fact.

[imtringued]

Nowadays everyone prints money, didn't you read internet comments. If I loan you five dollars I have printed five dollars because the contract we signed counts as a certificate of deposit in the minds of these people.

[commandlinefan]

> the government doing what it should do, tighten financial inequality gaps

No, that’s really, really not what the government should be doing.

[andrekandre]

what should it be doing?

[petilon]

They may not be printing money, but they are propping up inflation by giving people free money for compensating for inflation.

[bigyikes]

Yes, people are ignoring the second-order effects. Just because California can’t directly print money doesn’t mean they aren’t contributing to the macroeconomic factors leading to the Fed feeling the need to print more money.

[anon291]

Right. One way to combat inflation is to save money. The fed encourages this by increasing the interest rate. If california truly wanted to reduce inflation, it would simply retain those $1000 checks. Taking money out of supply reduces inflation.

[groby_b]

California doesn't want to reduce inflation. (It would be of at least questionable legality, too. Because monetary policy lies with the federal government - Article 1, Section 8)

What California does want to do is ensure poorer people aren't bearing the load disproportionately.

Also, while we can certainly argue if this is the best use of those funds, a quick reminder that the size of the US money supply is almost 22 trillion. We're about $6T above 2019 levels. California retaining $10B is not going to have any measurable impact on inflation.

[imtringued]

They can spend the money on things that don't inflate. A tax rebate can only be spent on energy which makes the problem worse.