By Representative John Faulkner | The Faulkner Files
Politics has always been filled with promises.
Candidates promise lower taxes, better schools, safer communities, stronger infrastructure, better health care and more opportunities for working families. Some promises become law. Others disappear almost as quickly as the campaign signs.
But every now and then, a political promise deserves a closer examination.
At the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, President Donald Trump made one of those promises.
He told the American people that if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate, every adult citizen would receive what he called a $5,000 “Trump dividend.”
His words were remarkably direct: “So if the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000.”
That deserves more than applause or outrage.
It deserves arithmetic.
There are approximately 245 million adult U.S. citizens. Multiply that by $5,000 and the price tag approaches $1.2 trillion. Current estimates put the potential cost even higher, at roughly $1.35 trillion. (FactCheck.org)
One trillion dollars is a difficult number to comprehend. But consider where America already stands.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government has accumulated a roughly $2 trillion deficit during the first 11 months of this fiscal year. In other words, Washington is already spending approximately $2 trillion more than it is taking in. (Congressional Budget Office)
Our total national debt has now crossed the $40 trillion mark. (Reuters)
And against that backdrop, the President is proposing another expenditure of more than $1 trillion.
That is not pocket change.
That is not free money.
And calling it a “dividend” does not change the mathematics.
President Trump suggested that tariff revenues generated by his economic policies would help make these payments possible. Tariff revenue has certainly increased. But independent analysis shows that current tariff collections are nowhere close to financing a payout of this size.
FactCheck.org estimates that, at current levels, it would take more than six years of tariff revenue to finance one round of these payments. (FactCheck.org)
There is another important point that sometimes gets lost when politicians talk about tariffs.
Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods. The federal government collects the tariff from the importer, but businesses can pass some or all of those additional costs along through higher prices. So before we celebrate tariff money as if another country simply mailed Washington a check, we should understand who ultimately carries the burden.
Then comes the question that troubles me most.
President Trump did not simply announce a proposal to send Americans $5,000.
He connected the payment directly to the outcome of an election.
If Republicans win the House and Senate, he said, Americans get the money.
Legally, that distinction is important.
Federal law prohibits certain forms of offering money or something of value in exchange for a person’s vote. At the same time, courts have recognized that politicians may campaign on policies that would financially benefit citizens. In Brown v. Hartlage, the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished a public-policy promise from a private agreement to purchase a voter’s support. (Legal Information Institute)
So I am not declaring that the President committed the crime of buying votes.
But legality and ethics are not always the same thing.
There is a legitimate question about how close we should allow politics to come to putting a dollar amount on an election result.
“If my party wins, you get $5,000” may survive a legal test.
But should it survive our ethical test?
And there is another question every taxpayer should ask: Where does the money actually come from?
A President cannot simply reach into the United States Treasury and distribute more than a trillion dollars without legal authority to do so. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said congressional approval would be necessary for the proposed payments. (AP News)
That means the promise is not a check waiting to be mailed.
It is a political proposal carrying an enormous price tag.
This issue should not be reduced to Republican versus Democrat.
Both parties have supported policies that put money into Americans’ pockets. Both parties have contributed over many years to spending, deficits and the national debt. Fiscal responsibility cannot suddenly become important only when the other party occupies the White House.
The numbers should matter regardless of who is President.
A nation with more than $40 trillion in debt should be having serious conversations about what we spend, what we collect, what we borrow and what we leave behind for the next generation. (Reuters)
We should also be able to distinguish between helping people and enticing people.
Government absolutely has a responsibility to help its citizens during difficult times. But when a specific cash payment becomes explicitly tied to one political party retaining power, we ought to be willing to ask where public policy ends and political inducement begins.
Democracy should never become an auction where political power goes to whoever promises the biggest check.
Elections should be decided by our values, our communities, our children’s futures and the direction we believe our country should take.
Five thousand dollars may sound good today.
But more than $1 trillion still has to come from somewhere tomorrow.
And with a national debt already exceeding $40 trillion, perhaps the most important question is not simply, “What are you promising me?”
Maybe it is time we started asking:
Who is going to pay for it?
This is The Faulkner Files.
