There’s nothing conservative about Trump’s $5,000 checks

A wise political analyst once said that in assessing the state of a political campaign, it’s best to mostly ignore the noise — including polling — and focus instead on the actual behavior of the candidates and campaigns themselves.President Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot this fall, but his party’s governing majorities are in serious jeopardy. His actions suggest Republicans are right to be very anxious about what awaits them from voters.The president’s Hail Mary pass, heaved at last week’s novel mini-convention in Dallas, reeks of desperation. It’s also a truly awful idea on the merits. “If the Republicans win, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” he thundered from the lectern.Critics have noted that companies, not governments, pay dividends. Many have also called this pledge nothing more than an electoral bribe.A deeper irony was glaring: At a two-day GOP political pep rally where attacking socialism was a constant — and correct — refrain, the leader of the party rolled out a policy proposal — which is using the term generously — to simply write large checks to every American if voters reelect the supposed party of limited government and fiscal restraint.Conservatives are, of course, generally in favor of reducing the tax burden and allowing workers to keep more of what they earn. Trump’s signature tax policies in each of his Oval Office terms were, on balance, good, pro-growth reforms.But what neither party seems remotely interested in — and one of them doesn’t even pretend to care about — is controlling spending and addressing the inexorably spiraling and unsustainable national debt.It’s unclear if anyone in Washington is bothering to count these days, but the national debt has blown past $40 trillion. This year’s deficit alone is projected to hit $2 trillion.These are flashing red lights during a time of relative peace and prosperity.Despite what certain lazy, ubiquitous talking points may contend, this red ink is not primarily attributable to military spending — national defense is an actual constitutional imperative for the government — or to foreign aid.The overwhelming drivers of this train wreck are gigantic entitlement programs that have made sweeping and wildly unrealistic promises to the public. Promises with no viable path to fulfillment. Enormous IOUs without the funding to deliver on them.Amid all the reckless, debt-exploding pledges that are slowly sinking us, dangling yet more unpaid-for goodies, to the tune of $1.3 trillion, is indefensible.The “dividends” fantasy — and the magical tariff “pay-fors” are indeed pure fantasy — would be very unwise even if the nation’s finances were in far better shape. Under the current circumstances, it’s madness.Democrats who decry Trump’s idea are no strangers to insane promises and exploiting public dollars to placate and enrich various political constituencies and special interests. They don’t have a leg to stand on.In fact, the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is marching through the party in a hostile takeover effort, costs an estimated $70 trillion to $200 trillion. That’s more than double the size of the entire U.S. economy, at the low end.It is profoundly foolish to enter into a taxpayer-funded “free stuff” bidding war with such people. The party that calls itself conservative shouldn’t want to try. It’s a contest they’ll always lose.Fighting socialism should feature… fighting socialism, not engaging in various versions of it while slapping different labels on it.Then there’s the pesky, picayune detail of legality.With a number of Republicans balking at his “checks for everyone” bonanza — which, oh, by the way, economists warn would inevitably fuel more punishing inflation — the president seems to believe he could impose all of this unilaterally.Asked if Congress would need to pass his new orgy of spending, Trump replied, “We think not.”He thinks wrong. Congress controls the purse strings as a matter of black-and-white constitutional law. No president has the authority to dream up a pet spending spree and implement it absent legislative action.Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who is hedging on the underlying idea itself, seems to have a grasp of basic civics, accurately asserting that his branch of government would have to approve the funding for any such gambit.Effectively forcing Johnson to contradict the president in the closing weeks of an election season feels like another unforced error.GUY BENSON: MAMDANISM FALTERS IN NEW YORKNone of this speaks well of the Republicans’ position heading into November. Losing elections isn’t fun, and the opposition is unsettlingly extreme these days.But those realities don’t justify this unserious, inflationary, unaffordable, and potentially unconstitutional mess.