However, there’s a significant caveat: If implemented as Fishback intends, the lowest-income Americans might receive nothing.
How Would the DOGE Dividend Work?
The proposal relies on the success of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative backed by Musk, which aims to cut $2 trillion from federal expenditure. Fishback suggests distributing 20% of those savings—approximately $400 billion—among 79 million tax-paying households, resulting in a $5,000 check for each household.
Importantly, only those who pay more in federal income tax than they get in government benefits would be eligible. Fishback contends this design avoids inflationary spending and promotes financial stability:
“The DOGE Dividend differs from previous stimulus checks because it only benefits tax-paying households. There is nothing inflationary about paying off debt, saving for emergencies, or investing in education or retirement.” — James FishbackHowever, while this design may mitigate some economic issues, it also raises a contentious question: Who gets excluded?
Low-Income Households Left Behind
Traditionally, stimulus checks have aimed to support those most in need. During the pandemic, direct payments phased out for higher-income earners, assuring aid reached those who required it most. Fishback’s plan alters this approach.
The Tax Policy Center reports that 93% of Americans earning less than $20,000 paid no federal income tax in 2022. Even among those making between $40,000 and $50,000, nearly half paid nothing in federal taxes. Consequently, under the DOGE Dividend plan, millions of low-income Americans—including many Trump supporters—would receive nothing, while billionaires such as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates would qualify.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, expressed concerns about the plan’s viability and fairness:
“We need to determine if any real savings exist before promising checks to the public. Offering a dividend definitely doesn’t help in reducing the deficit. It feels like putting the cart before the horse.” — Mark Zandi
Is There Even Enough Money to Go Around?
Despite Musk’s initial claims of achieving $2 trillion in cuts, the actual savings from DOGE are unclear. The organization asserts it has saved $55 billion to date, but some of these numbers have been scrutinized. For example, DOGE reported an $8 billion saving from a canceled Department of Homeland Security contract, which was actually valued at $8 million.
Zandi cautions that savings from government cuts might have adverse economic effects. Laying off federal workers and reducing services could harm the economy in unforeseen ways:
“There’s no free lunch here. Cutting jobs and scaling back government programs generates real economic impacts. We need to understand the long-term consequences before hastily issuing dividend checks.” — Mark Zandi
A Political Tightrope for Trump
This proposal places Trump in a complicated situation. He has a history of using stimulus checks for political gain, presenting them as direct benefits from his administration. However, excluding low-income Americans could alienate vital constituents and provoke backlash.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed doubts at the Conservative Political Action Conference:
“Politically, that could be beneficial for us, you know. It gives everyone a check. But fiscal responsibility is vital for us as conservatives. We have a $36 trillion federal debt. We need to address that issue first, right?” — Mike Johnson
Even Musk has adjusted expectations, now suggesting that saving $1 trillion is a more feasible goal. If accurate, this would halve the proposed checks to $2,500 per household.
A Policy Paradox With No Easy Answer
Fishback remains steadfast, suggesting that even a smaller dividend would symbolize government accountability:
“Suppose we only save $500 billion. Then the check would be $1,250. That’s still significant money. It’s not just about the dollar amount—it’s the symbolism behind the government returning funds to hardworking Americans.” — James Fishback
The DOGE Dividend is an enticing idea—who wouldn’t appreciate the notion of receiving free money? Yet, behind the eye-catching figures, the proposal encounters substantial obstacles: economic viability, political practicality, and core fairness.
As Zandi remarked, “It’s a strong assumption to suggest that these positions have no value or importance long-term, that their roles are not crucial for the functioning of our economy and society.”
As policymakers deliberate the plan’s feasibility, its inherent contradiction persists: A dividend intended to curb inflation must exclude those who need financial aid the most. Expanding eligibility could enhance public support but also risk negative economic repercussions.
For now, the DOGE Dividend remains an alluring yet deeply debated proposal. Whether it will materialize or fade into obscurity as another political illusion is yet to be determined.
