State of California Stiffs AIER PDF Print E-mail
Written by AIER Research Staff   
Wednesday, 25 February 2009 00:00

This is not the first time the state of California has had trouble paying its bills. Back in 1992, when California was hit hard by a recession and by major defense cuts, it ran into similar fiscal problems. That year, a payment from the state to AIER for an Annual Sustaining Membership “bounced.” Below is the full report from the AIER archives

"Someone in California's state government recently had the foresight to order a subscription to our publications. Unfortunately, it came too late to avert inconvenience and loss to the State's employees and suppliers — ourselves now included among the latter.

A State of California Warrant issued to us on July 6,1992 in payment of an AIER Annual Sustaining Membership is reproduced below. That warrant was issued in lieu of a bank check and was returned by our bank to us after the California State Treasurer refused to make payment on it (i.e., it bounced). On the reverse of the warrant (also reproduced), the California State Treasurer has stamped an endorsement of sorts that states "not paid for want of funds," but promises to pay 5% interest "to and including the date upon which the State Treasurer first advertises that said warrant is payable upon presentation."

State of California Warrant

We have no idea when the State Treasurer will make good on such warrants, which currently are held by many of the state's employees and suppliers and which no longer are being honored by all banks. But our experience is a tangible reminder of what we often have opined in these pages: namely, that government obligations are not as riskless as many people apparently believe them to be.

From a financial perspective, the chief difference between California's present situation and that of the U.S. Government, which also is living beyond its (i.e., the taxpayers') means, is that states cannot print money to satisfy their debts. When they run out of funds, their checks bounce, which alerts everyone to the government's mismanagement. When the U.S. Government has "insufficient funds," it simply creates more — and, instead of receiving a returned check, U.S. citizens receive a currency that looks the same and still is legal tender, but whose value is reduced in purchasing power.

If the State of California eventually makes good on its promise to pay us, we will be out only the $5 that our bank levied as a service charge on the returned item, and our guess is that most other holders if its warrants eventually will be made whole. The costs to the public of the Federal Government's power to print as much legal tender as is required to "pay" its debts are far less visible, but incalculably greater. Oh, yes. Even though we have not been paid, we will not interrupt the State of California's subscription. As events suggest, it is sorely needed."

Share this article:

Deli.cio.us    Digg    reddit    Facebook    StumbleUpon    Newsvine
 

Other articles by AIER Research Staff:

Comments (6)
Only further confirmation that AEIR is a ripoff !!
6 Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:04
Hugh Miller
This kind of muckraking is despicable.
CA politics
5 Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:23
Barry h
Just what you can expect from a state that sends people like Pelosi and Boxer to Washington. The present governor is no jewel. They will be hit harder this year with the significant reduction in tourists money coupled with less defense spending. Their Disney to Los Vegas train won't help.
gov.print press
4 Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:17
bob-mi
we people would like one or can we request a down load !!
Stiffed by the State of California
3 Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:47
Bill Atkinson Port Angeles
Thanks for the article and the point it makes. As the diversified modern portfolio theory you advocate shows, nothing is risk free. Fortunately the inflated currency you decry has not dropped as much in value as my balanced portfolio. No amount of hedging can avoid the "Black Swans" of the life experience.
Stiffed by the State
2 Wednesday, 25 February 2009 11:44
veek
I thought this was a good article, and using the government's check illustrated the main points of the article (that not all government obligations are risk-free, and that not all risks of government over-spending are obvious). Whether the stiffed check was issued in 2009, 1992, 1892, or at some time in the future (like a 2018 bond would effectively be) is a side issue.
Thanks for the amusing and interesting article. True anecdotes are a valid way of getting a point across.
Stiffed... back in 1992
1 Wednesday, 25 February 2009 09:03
Jim in WI
Another good article, but please be careful with the headline. When I first saw the headline I thought the article dealt with being "stiffed" currently by the state of California, rather than a retelling of AIER's experience from 1992. The state may very well deserve bad credit, but it deserves its bad credit based on its current actions rather than those from 17 years ago.

Ultimately the people end up having to pay for both state and federal government financial woes, though as you point out the folks with the printing press are able to extract their payment more stealthily.

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:
  The word for verification. Lowercase letters only with no spaces.
Word verification: