The distortions in the markets caused by new money creates a lot of very serious systemic issues, it just doesn't do much to price inflation (or, at least, hasn

The distortions in the markets caused by new money creates a lot of very serious systemic issues, it just doesn't do much to price inflation (or, at least, hasn't) because the money has been remaining in financial instruments. Most of the state budget is going to be things like welfare (e.g., health care), unemployment payments, and salaries of state employees. Some infrastructure, but then much of that goes to salaries, too. Purchase of bonds is the same thing. The money is still created and spent. It's kind of a good deal for the city because by the time they have to pay it back it may cost more to cut a check than what is left on the principal, but of course that also means that every bit of wealth has been reduced to zero. Many municipalities have passed laws (usually through initiatives) that forbid the cities from borrowing without a vote, and even in California voters do not just automatically pass every bond measure. However, the state might be able to pass bonds, but it looks like there are some hurdles even for that. I found what I thought was an amendment is a referendum and was pass in 2004: https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm