Last week, President Trump announced his intention to pay every American adult $5,000 if his party wins the House and the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. “If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump said, calling the move the “Trump Dividend.”
The announcement was widely criticized, with some calling it “income redistribution” and “socialism.” But Americans weren’t the only ones condemning the proposal. In Argentina, many realized they had seen a similar move in 2023 when Sergio Massa, then economy minister and Peronist presidential candidate, unveiled a plan that essentially sought to buy votes before the presidential election. Trump is using a similar strategy to one that helped push Argentina to the brink of economic catastrophe, risking America’s economic future.
As I’ve argued before, many of Trump’s policies resemble those of the Kirchnerist government that held power in Argentina for almost two decades. The Kirchnerist government’s tenure culminated in 2023 under President Alberto Fernandez and Vice President Cristina Kirchner, with 211% annual inflation largely due to their obscene fiscal irresponsibility.
Some of that fiscal irresponsibility rested with Massa. Among other inflationary measures, Massa unveiled a plan to bribe voters two months before the 2023 election: his “Plan Platita” (”Little Money Plan”). It essentially consisted of handing out money to voters via one-time payments to most workers, bonuses for retirees and the unemployed, tax cuts and exemptions for some, expanded food card benefits, and price caps on tens of thousands of products, among other measures.
Some estimates claim that the plan came to over 1% of Argentina’s GDP. With no access to credit markets, the government financed the plan by printing pesos— flooding the economy with new currency, driving down the peso’s value and driving up prices. Economists at the time warned that the plan was a “sign of desperation” and a short-sighted attempt to sustain buying power temporarily amid high inflation. They predicted that it would worsen economic problems, and they were right.
Massa’s plan was perceived at the time as an attempt to buy votes and keep Kirchnerism in power. Critics similarly called Trump’s plan a “bribe” intended to keep Republicans in Congress. Massa’s plan differed from Trump’s in that it wasn’t contingent on winning the election; Trump’s approach is more brazen. Massa’s plan was also broader, not a one-time check but a set of costly measures.
But like Massa’s plan, Trump’s proposal is irresponsible and divorced from reality, as even some conservatives have noted. The “dividends” would cost $1.2 trillion, according to a Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report. “Deficits would rise from a projected 5.8% of GDP this year to 9.4% in 2027,” it suggests.
Massa ended up financing his plan with monetary emission. Where is the money for Trump’s plan coming from? Vice President JD Vance said it would come from tariff revenue. “All of these tariffs … those penalties have generated a lot of revenue.” But Vance’s vague explanations don’t add up.
“Revenue from tariffs, which are really just taxes on Americans, will not come close to covering this proposed expenditure,” explains journalist Eric Boehm. “Tariff revenue has been in negative territory in recent months as the Trump administration issues refunds for the illegal tariffs it levied last year.”
Vance also appears to acknowledge that the proposal would redistribute wealth: He says the administration wants to ensure that “wealth is going to go back to the American people,” echoing Kirchnerist rhetoric.
Massa’s expensive plan to buy votes failed; it was one of the reasons why he lost the presidential runoff to Javier Milei, a fiscally conservative, pro-free-market, self-described libertarian candidate. Argentines did not avoid catastrophe—inflation was astronomically high at the end of 2023—but they voted the Kirchnerists out of office and narrowly escaped total collapse.
The U.S. economy is not nearly as bad as Argentina’s was in 2023, but proposals like Trump’s inch it closer to trouble. And America now faces a problem: What’s the alternative to fiscal recklessness when the so-called “small-government” party is escalating that recklessness and the Democratic Party is just as irresponsible and short-sighted?
There’s no meaningful difference between “left” and “right” on fiscal discipline. Even if Trump’s plan never materializes, it shows that his administration is willing to use public money for campaigning and gamble the country’s fiscal future, just as the leftists in Argentina did. Americans should heed the warning before their country goes further down that path.
Agustina Vergara Cid is a columnist for the Southern California News Group.