$5,000 Isn't Asking Much

President Trump had a good idea this week.

Send every adult American a $5,000 dividend.

My response?

Do it.

And before Washington starts explaining why it can't, I'd like everybody to grab a calculator.

At the Republican convention in Dallas, President Trump talked about $21 trillion in tariff-driven revenue.

Now I'm not interested in litigating that number here. I'm not interested in another 900-word argument about tariffs either.

For purposes of this conversation, I'm taking the President at his word.

Twenty-one trillion dollars.

Okay.

Now let's do the math.

There are roughly 240 million adult citizens in America. Five thousand dollars for each of them comes to approximately $1.2 trillion.

Against $21 trillion?

That's less than six percent.

Six percent.

Meaning, if we accept the President's number, Washington keeps more than 94 percent of it.

And people are telling me five grand is too much?

Please.

This is where Washington never ceases to amaze me.

The federal government can find billions for programs nobody remembers authorizing.

It can spend money overseas with numbers so large normal people stop comprehending them.

It can discover another hundred billion here and another hundred billion there.

But suggest actually sending some of the money back to the American people?

Suddenly everybody in Washington discovers fiscal restraint.

Now we're worried about the checkbook.

Now come the furrowed brows.

Now we need white papers.

No.

President Trump didn't propose sending everybody $50,000.

He didn't propose dividing the entire amount among the population and emptying the Treasury.

Five thousand dollars.

Less than six cents of every dollar represented by the $21 trillion figure?

Washington can survive on the other 94.

And think about what $5,000 actually means outside Washington.

It's not theoretical.

It's the transmission somebody has been putting off.

It's getting two credit cards out of the way.

It's replacing the refrigerator that has been making that noise for six months.

It's the dental work insurance somehow doesn't quite cover.

It's tuition.

It's groceries.

It's getting ahead on the mortgage.

It's putting something into savings and, for once, leaving it there.

For a family with two adults?

Ten grand.

That's real money.

Not Washington money.

Real-people money.

And President Trump added one condition I particularly like: spend it in America.

Fine by me.

Americans get the dividend.

American businesses get the spending.

The money moves through American communities.

The hardware store.

The mechanic.

The restaurant.

The contractor.

The appliance store.

The local business that's been trying to make payroll while Washington argues about macroeconomics.

Seems pretty straightforward.

But here's where I want to see whether Washington can actually do something that normal people understand.

Congress has to approve this.

That's where the trouble begins.

Because presidents can propose.

Congress has to appropriate.

And Congress has an almost supernatural ability to take a simple idea and murder it with process.

There will be objections.

There already are.

Some Republicans are worried about inflation and the deficit. Others support the idea. Getting something this size through both chambers is never going to be simple.

Fine.

Have the debate.

But don't lose sight of the arithmetic we're accepting for this exercise.

$21 trillion.

$1.2 trillion back to the American people.

More than $19 trillion remaining.

If that's the premise, stop acting like the five grand is the extravagant part.

It isn't.

And maybe that's what I like most about the idea.

Washington usually talks about Americans as sources of revenue.

Taxpayers.

Consumers.

Workers.

Filers.

Numbers on spreadsheets.

This proposal reverses the direction.

Something worked?

America benefited?

Then Americans get a piece.

I like that.

George W. Bush did something similar in 2001 when Americans received tax rebate checks after Washington found itself with a budget surplus.

Different circumstances. Different numbers.

Same concept.

Sometimes Washington can give some of it back.

And $5,000 in 2026 would mean considerably more to most households than politicians seem to understand.

Maybe because the people debating whether you need $5,000 aren't the people wondering whether the checking account will survive until Friday.

That's why I don't want to watch this become another Washington promise that disappears into committee rooms.

There's a number on the table now.

Five thousand dollars.

Good.

Now put Congress on the record.

Write the legislation.

Debate it.

Vote on it.

And let every member of Congress explain to the people back home why they're voting yes or no.

No hiding behind parliamentary fog.

No pretending nobody knows how these things happen.

And no spending six months explaining why Washington desperately needs every penny while simultaneously discovering another gigantic appropriation for something Americans never asked for.

If we're accepting $21 trillion as the premise, the American people's share isn't extravagant.

It's not even close.

It's less than six percent.

A good idea landed on the table this week. Congress shouldn't be the place it goes to die.

Don't you dare turn $5,000 into another Washington promise that somehow never makes it back to the people.

Washington can survive on the other 94 percent.

Send the checks.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.