The $5,000 promise - Washington still has to pay the bill. It isn't the free lunch they want you to believe it is.
by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor
A $5,000 check from Washington is either socialism or a dividend, depending on which party is signing it.
On Sept. 1, the House passed a Republican resolution condemning “socialism in all its forms” by a vote of 220-192. Days later, at the Republican National Committee's midterm convention in Dallas, President Trump warned that Democratic socialism would lead to communism, then
promised every adult American a $5,000 “dividend” if Republicans hold Congress.
When Democrats propose sending government money to Americans, Republicans call it socialism.
When Republicans propose the same thing, they call it a dividend.
That contradiction points to a more useful question than either label: how does Washington keep promising new money when the national debt has already passed $40 trillion?
Trump's proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion if paid to every adult citizen. He has offered no detailed financing plan, pointing instead to economic strength and tariff revenue, while Commerce Secretary Lutnick has floated other sources. Whatever it's called, a $5,000 payment funded by the federal government is federal spending.
The timing makes the contradiction harder to ignore. The national debt sits at $40 trillion, annual deficits already run in the trillions, and Washington keeps finding new ways to add to both. The White House ballroom renovation has climbed to an estimated $927 million, much of it taxpayer-funded, according to The Washington Post. A proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would compensate people, including convicted Jan. 6 defendants, who claim they were unfairly targeted; a federal court blocked it in July, and the DOJ is appealing. And, Construction is set to begin on a 250-foot Independence Arch.
A $40 trillion debt is not an abstraction. It is a mortgage on our children's future, one likely to leave them with a lower standard of living than their parents had.
A prolonged war with Iran would only add to that risk. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost taxpayers several trillion dollars over two decades, according to a Brown University study; a drawn-out conflict with Iran could add substantially to a debt already out of control.
Each of these commitments can be defended on its own terms. The real question is what they add up to on top of the $40 trillion already owed.
That is where the socialism and communism argument collapses. Republicans call Democratic proposals for health care, child care and family benefits socialism, yet Republican administrations use the same government power for their own priorities: a 9.9 percent stake in Intel, a “golden share” in U.S. Steel,
tariff-funded aid to farmers, and now a $5,000 check to every household. Each moves money from the public treasury to a recipient chosen by whichever party controls it at the time, which is the same transfer Republicans call socialism when Democrats propose universal health care.
None of this makes
America socialist or communist. Those are specific terms with long, consequential histories, not political weapons to fire whenever an opponent's policy needs discrediting. Calling something socialism or communism doesn't make it so; it substitutes an accusation for an argument. If government intervention is acceptable when Republicans choose the industry or the recipient, the debate was never about ideology. It was about whether a policy is necessary, affordable and worth the cost.
Affordability should be the easiest question to answer. If tariffs are paying for the check, why should Americans face higher prices so Washington can hand some of the money back? If borrowing is paying for it, why add another trillion dollars to the $40 trillion already owed? If a settlement fund is paying for it, why should taxpayers cover claims from people convicted of attacking Congress? If deficits already run in the trillions every year, why does one more trillion get called a dividend instead of debt?
Voters shouldn't have to choose between socialism and communism. Those aren't policy arguments; they're campaign weapons. They should be able to ask something simpler: what will it cost, who will pay for it, and what will America get in return?
The $5,000 promise makes those questions impossible to avoid. Republicans can call it a dividend, call Democratic programs socialism, and call their opponents communists. Washington still has to pay the bill.
With $40 trillion already on the national credit card, the question isn't whether Washington calls the next check socialism or a dividend. It's who will finally stop signing for money America doesn't have.
About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on
life in America on Substack.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGS: Trump promises money if Republicans win, It is only socialism when the Left does it, War in Iran costs Americans trillions, upcoming election promise, Congress still must approve the distribution, Another empty Trump promise, political commentary by Van Abbott
What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here:
Sentinel submission guideline.
We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.
