President Trump’s proposal to give every American adult $5,000 should the Republicans retain both houses of Congress following the 2026 midterms is fiscally irresponsible, but not uniquely so. Worse damage will be done by reducing further (if possible) the GOP’s credibility as it battles Democratic Socialism—a battle which Democrats can’t wage since Democratic Socialists are already working within the Democratic Party. Indeed, Trump’s proposal constitutes a willingness to surrender to the irresponsible forces of Democratic Socialism.
There’s something almost refreshing in the transparency of Trump’s proposed $5,000/adult “Trump dividend” plan. It’s standard operating procedure for each party to support policies which will, it is hoped, buy votes. Consider:
- When President Biden was still planning to seek a second presidential term, he sought to cancel $400 billion in student debt. Of course, debt is never really cancelled; rather, the responsibility for handling it is simply transferred, and Biden no doubt wanted to win more votes from current and former students who had borrowed money by saying that the taxpayers who had supplied the money for the loans were to be left holding the bag.
- In 2010, the cost of living declined. The law mandates that when the cost of living goes up, Social Security payments must be increased as well, but when the cost of living goes down, Social Security payments must remain the same, meaning the purchasing power of Social Security payments actually goes up. Nonetheless, President Obama, to improve the morale of Social Security recipients disappointed that their payments would not automatically go up, sought to provide an additional $500 payment to recipients anyway (he got $250).
- National security is one of only several factors determining how much money will be spent on national defense, and where weapons plants and military bases will be located. In fact, bases and/or weapons plants are located in every state and most congressional districts, and almost every member of Congress wants something in his state or district for the money pumped into his constituency and the jobs created. In the 1980s, for example, when Democratic senators were complaining about the rapid defense buildup being pushed by President Reagan, Texas Senator John Tower challenged each of his colleagues to propose at least one cost-cutting measure to be implemented in his or her state. One Democratic senator from Arkansas proposed the closure of a germ warfare plant, evidently fearing that whatever was in the plant could get out and hence there’d be nobody left to vote for him. Three Republican senators—two from Utah and one from Nevada—urged that missile bases in their states be moved, since otherwise their states would be targeted first should the Soviet Union launch a missile attack. Otherwise, every other senator, including the most liberal Democrats who said Ronald Reagan was a bomb-throwing warmongering maniac, insisted that all military bases and weapons factories be retained, with no reductions in operations and financial support. Excessive defense spending is bad only when it’s in someone else’s state.
So the Trump Dividend program, in a weird sort of way, has a certain warped integrity. His proposed cash transfers are out in the open, and not being hidden by other policy proposals. Nobody can possibly mistake exactly what he’s up to.
Nonetheless, the program is fiscally irresponsible. Its implementation would cost more than a trillion dollars—an amount dwarfing the fun and games played by Biden and Obama, or the Reagan-era defense budget.
And where would the money to finance the $1.2 trillion giveaway? Would the public have an additional $1.2 trillion in taxes imposed on it to raise the $1.2 trillion Trump wants to give it? Or would the government simply borrow an additional $1.2 trillion to give the public, which the public would then be taxed to help repay the increased deficit and debt? Who knows? There are no easy answers consistent with any semblance of fiscal responsibility.
But the proposed Trump dividends would not only make worse our growing fiscal crisis; they would reduce what little credibility the GOP might possess in combating the growing Democratic Socialism movement.
Implementation of the most extreme Democratic Socialism proposals—defunding the military, the police, and the prisons—would destroy both our national security and our public safety. But even if these proposals are stopped, other proposals constitute a profoundly dishonest and dangerous threat to public policy and finance.
The big lie at the heart of Democratic Socialism is that the government can provide “free” goods and services—college educations, medical care, etc., etc. But no service provided by any government at any level is ever truly “free.” Somebody has to pay for it, whether in the form of fees, or taxes, or some other resources extracted by the government. To make matters worse, a socialistic economy simply cannot supply the resources required to supply “free” services; hence the ruination of Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Sweden, the model social democracy so beloved by Bernie Sanders, actually has an economy based on what Democratic Socialists truly hate—free market capitalism with private ownership of all major industries, albeit with taxes on corporate and personal income high enough to finance generous welfare benefits. Sweden does not practice Democratic Socialism.
Because Democratic Socialists in America are working within the Democratic Party, Democratic leaders who know better can’t very well repudiate or criticize them for fear of creating more divisions in the Democratic Party for the benefit of the Republicans. It’s therefore up to the Republican Party to fight Democratic Socialism. But the GOP can’t be relied on to combat Democratic Socialism effectively either. By proposing his Trump
Dividend program, Trump is in essence proposing his own set of giveaways. How can he or any other MAGA Republican charge Democratic Socialists with wanting to give away “free stuff” when that’s exactly what Trump is proposing to do as well? He and his supporters are, in essence, waving the white flag of surrender in a war that must be fought between those who believe in fiscal responsibility and those who do not.
In an ideal political system, taxes, spending, and debt would be minimal. Economic growth, job creation, and revenue increases would be achieved through free enterprise, free markets, and free trade. Necessary social welfare programs would be on a sound financial basis with benefits to be financed through user fees and, possibly, taxes (and tax increases if necessary) and not by continuous and irresponsible borrowing. While liberals and socialists (democratic or otherwise) are well within their rights to reject this concept of the ideal system, one point is beyond dispute: We are far, far away from a fiscally sound program of taxes and spending, and the proposed Trump Dividend program reduces even further the prospect of ever regaining fiscal responsibility, or the credibility of GOP efforts to do so.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville Economic Development Authority since 2018, and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment