Trump's "$5,000 bonus" sparks controversy: Senate Republican leader dismisses it, Democrats denounce it as "the stench of despair."

Trump's proposal of a "$5,000 bonus per person" at the Republican midterm election convention has been met with both a lack of explicit endorsement from party leaders and fierce criticism from Democrats. This proposal, which requires more than a trillion dollars and lacks details, is now caught in a vortex of doubts from various parties.

On Thursday, when pressed by the media about whether he supported the proposal, Senate Majority Leader John Thune brushed it off with "Good question, we'll see," without giving a direct answer as to whether the Senate would push through the legislation.

While House Majority Leader Steve Scalise adopted a more positive tone, stating that Republicans would "continue to deliver" on similar promises, he also passed the buck back to Congress, saying, "It's our responsibility to get the numbers working." Trump's ally, Representative Jim Jordan, similarly avoided substantive comments, only saying he "would like to see the proposal first."

The proposal came at a time when the U.S. public debt surpassed $40 trillion for the first time, and its fiscal costs sparked significant divisions within the party.

Meanwhile, prominent Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke called the plan "smells of despair," accusing Republicans of being unable to compete based on their governing philosophy and achievements, and resorting instead to political tricks like "bribing voters." Some Democrats, however, indicated they would not rule out discussions with Republicans regarding "direct subsidies."

The leaders collectively "play tai chi," raising doubts about the proposal's implementation.

In a speech at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas on Wednesday, Trump proposed to give every American adult $5,000, which he called the "Trump Bonus," if the Republicans retain control of Congress in November, but did not provide any policy details.

In an interview with Fox News, Thune brushed it off with "Good question, we'll see," refusing to give a direct answer as to whether the Senate would pass the proposal.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a staunch Trump ally, said he supports "in principle" allowing people to keep more of their own money, but emphasized that he "wants to see the proposal first."

Scalise's stance was relatively positive, stating that if Republicans retain their majority in Congress, they will "continue to deliver on more similar promises," while acknowledging that the digital aspects still need to be addressed by Congress itself.

It is worth noting that Thune's relationship with Trump remains strained. He was the only congressional leader at this GOP conference who did not receive a speaking seat, and when Trump mentioned him on stage, the audience immediately booed.

The financial burden is heavy, and the party requires additional conditions.

Based on the current estimate of approximately 260 million American adults, the total cost of this plan would well exceed $1 trillion. This proposal comes at a time when US public debt has just surpassed $40 trillion for the first time, and borrowing costs are already under upward pressure.

Clear voices within the party are already suggesting conditions be attached. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said he expects Congress to discuss the impact of the fiscal deficit and has recommended designing the plan as a tax refund with work requirements, rather than direct cash payments. "This highlights the importance of the election," Cruz said.

Representative Ralph Norman made it clear that he requires that for every $1 distributed, there must be a minimum of $2 in expenditure offsetting arrangements as a prerequisite.

Based on this calculation, the required $2 trillion offset exceeds the federal government's total operating expenditure budget for this fiscal year, excluding mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and national debt interest.

On the supporter side, Senators Roger Marshall and Bernie Moreno have explicitly endorsed the plan. Moreno stated that he plans to introduce legislation to push Congress to a vote on it this year. It's worth noting that Marshall is currently facing a closely contested election in deep-red Kansas.

Democrats: Pre-election bribery, "the stench of despair"

The Democratic Party has been outspoken in its criticism of the proposal.

In an interview, prominent Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke sharply criticized the plan, calling it "stinking with despair" and accusing Republicans of "being unable to compete on governing principles and results, and only trying to stop voters from voting or to buy off those who might be persuaded."

Former Chicago mayor and Obama administration White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel dismissed the proposal as a "gimmick" and asserted that "the dog won't run away."

Pennsylvania Representative Madeleine Dean called the idea "absurd" and said that if Democrats regain a majority, they will focus on repealing Trump's tariffs, ending the war, and restoring expired Medicaid subsidies.

However, the Democratic Party is not a monolithic entity.

California Representative Robert Garcia stated that if the Democrats win a majority, they could discuss with Trump the direction of "providing direct support to the people," adding , "But he's a liar."

California Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove stated that she opposes any form of "quid pro quo" vote-buying, but is open to exploring ways to give back to the public, such as subsidies, tax credits, or dividends.

O'Rourke also predicted that the Democratic Party will launch an even bigger election wave this year than in 2018, and advised House Democrats to "go all out" and focus on major agendas such as universal healthcare to send a strong signal to voters that they are "seeking change".

Risk Warning and DisclaimerInvesting involves risk; please exercise caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.