>>192712, >>192713, >>192714, >>192715, >>192716, >>192717, >>192718, >>192719, >>192720, >>192721, >>192722, >>192723, >>192724, >>192725, >>192726, >>192727, >>192728, >>192729, >>192730, >>192731, >>192732
I sat in the room where someone asked if we could just skip the testing and was told no, we are not shipping the president's name with a rendering bug in it. The actual money moved slower so the branding could move faster. Every version since has been the branding moving faster and the money not moving at all.
Version one was the DOGE Dividend. It didn't come from this building. It came from a 30-year-old hedge fund manager named James Fishback, CEO of a firm called Azoria, who has said publicly that the number arrived to him in a dream. He posted it to Musk in February of 2025: take 20% of whatever DOGE saves and cut it into checks, math it out to roughly $5,000 a household if the savings hit $2 trillion. Musk replied that he'd check with the president. The president checked. Within days it was a line in a press briefing, no legislation, no appropriation, just a number that had been asleep in one man's head 12 hours earlier now sitting on the Resolute desk. By May, DOGE's own public savings tracker read $175 billion, not $2 trillion, which works out to $1,086.96 per taxpayer, not $5,000. Nobody issued a correction. The number just stopped being said out loud. And when Fishback later described himself as having advised DOGE, a former senior DOGE adviser went on the record to say, quote, you didn't advise DOGE. So the origin story of the $5,000 figure still being used today, 18 months and 2 rebrands later, is a dream, a tweet, and a denial. I have that DOGE savings tracker bookmarked. I check it the way other people check their portfolio.
Version two was the Tariff Dividend, announced that November. $2,000 a person this time, lower number, new funding source: tariff revenue instead of imaginary government savings. This one at least had a real number behind it: $195 billion collected in tariffs for the fiscal year. Economists ran the arithmetic before we did. Cato called it fiscal fantasy in print. A deputy chief economist at Oxford Economics warned that stacking a stimulus check on top of the existing tax cuts could overheat the economy. The math didn't work even before the legal problem showed up, and then the legal problem showed up: the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in February, the ones the dividend was supposed to be funded from, and by May we were issuing refunds to importers faster than customs was collecting anything. I watched the ledger cross from positive to negative in the same spreadsheet tab we'd built to track the dividend. We didn't rename the tab. We just stopped opening it.
Version three is the Trump Dividend, the one I'm actually being asked to price this week. Same number as version one, $5,000, announced Tuesday night from the stage of the midterm convention. Quote: if the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our tremendous economic success, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States for $5,000. One condition attached, and it isn't a funding mechanism, it's a spending restriction: the money has to stay in the country, no Canada, no China, no Germany, his words. So the government has now, for the first time in three attempts, specified where the imaginary money is allowed to be imaginarily spent. Commentators started using the word bribe before the applause even finished. There's a real federal statute for this: 18 U.S.C. 597, expenditures to influence voting, a fine or up to 2 years if it's willful. Nobody in this building has said the statute's number out loud in a meeting, and I've listened for it, because there's a comfortable legal argument sitting right there in plain sight: you cannot criminally buy a vote with money that was never appropriated, never budgeted, and has no line item anywhere in the federal government. It isn't a bribe. A bribe requires a bribe.
22