This "New Golden Era" Coming Back to Americans: The Windfall of Fantasy and Imagination in Trump America

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

May 15, 2025

Part of a new golden era is that it is linked to how ordinary Americans will benefit from Trump’s policies. For example, I am confused about the hypothetical money returning to Americans. The tax cut bill is working its way through Congress, and, I suppose, Americans are to see more money in their take-home pay (some more than others). Then there is Musk’s government spending cuts, which, if they happen, will lead to everyone getting a check back from the government because of the reduction in government spending (the figure of $5,000 is being thrown around). Then there is the External Revenue Service, which, by collecting increased tariff fees, will lead to Americans seeing their taxes reduced (I guess separate from the tax cut). I have listened to several people talk, and they all believe they will get more money in their pockets, something they honestly think will happen. And they believe it in ways where they are under the impression that this is a done deal or close to one. The amount they think they will get back in their pockets is expected to exceed the tax cuts because the DOGE check will be separate from the tax cuts. Then, the reduction in income taxes from tariff revenue that will be collected will lead to a further reduction in personal income taxes, which implies an additional change in income taxes as tariff revenue begins to flow into government coffers. I hope it is clear why I am confused. The Trump administration appears to be creating the impression that what Americans will be getting back into their pockets will be more like a windfall than just money from a slight tax cut (slight, again, for most people, big for people with sufficiently high six-figure incomes). One online site supportive of Trump stated, “US taxpayers could be getting a hefty payout should Donald Trump go ahead with his proposed plans.” Or, a post on Facebook:

WOW! President Trump’s tariffs will aim to slash or even eliminate income taxes for Americans making under $200,000.

Factories are booming, jobs are flooding back. This is exactly what rebuilding America looks like.

This belief that money will come back to them from Trump’s policies is there, but not in overt ways. The Detroit Free Press conducted extensive interviews with people in Michigan. All 100 interviews were broken down by regions within the state, and none of the people identified as Trump supporters said anything about money coming back to them. Terms such as “extremely well,” “good,” “strong,” “excellent,” and “hopeful” are used to express support for Trump. It is understandable that not hearing “what am I getting” in these interviews is normal. Such an overt sentiment is too crude to express. Yet, the belief that getting a check back from the government because of DOGE’s work and cutting government spending is alive and well. Furthermore, Trump’s statements supporting giving money back to Americans reinforce that notion.

Herbert Gans, a well-known Sociologist, addressed the issue that opinion polls or even surveys are often answers to questions that are asked, and really always opinions. As Gans stated:

[O]nly rarely do pollsters ask whether the respondents have thought about the question before the pollsters called, or whether they will ever do so again. In addition, polls usually do not tell us whether respondents have talked about the issue with family or friends, or whether they have expressed their answer cum opinion in other, more directly political ways.

Trump has pushed his notion of an External Revenue Service, stating, “We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade, and they will start paying.” It seemed so straightforward when he stated that this service would become part of his administration because of money flowing into it from increased tariffs. In March, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, said he was “excited” about creating this service. Trump has argued that making this service would lower Americans' taxes.

One article stated it well, regarding this notion of everyone (well, not quite) getting a $5,000 check:

Despite the lack of needed approval, suggestions that $5,000 checks will be distributed to U.S. citizens by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency continue to circulate.

James Fishback, CEO and co-founder of Arizona Partners, a real estate investment firm, who is credited with pushing this idea, posted on X:

Americans deserve a 'DOGE Dividend': 20% the money that DOGE saves should be sent back to hard-working Americans as a tax refund check. It was their money in the first place.

That $5,000 figure is just a dollar amount thrown around as an idea; it is not a given. Fishback stated:

[The Department of Government Efficiency] DOGE is going to save what DOGE is going to save. And I think that DOGE will save the most amount of money possible. If millions of Americans are deputized to report wasteful government spending.

Fishman added what he saw as a bonus to receiving this money: Americans who see government waste can report it, leading to more government spending cuts, bringing more money back to Americans. The underlying message is that, as the government saved money from Musk’s operation, the notion that some percentage of whatever savings accumulate must be shared with the public is the underlying message. I am unsure if Fishman understands that all the employee cuts Musk made, while looking flashy on TV, are a small part of the federal budget. The civilian federal workforce is slightly less than 5 percent of the federal budget (that is for the total workforce, and Musk’s cuts are a small percentage of that). On the other hand, federal contractors account for approximately 11.5 percent of the budget. As Trump plans to cut the federal workforce further, the need for contractors will increase. In other words, Trump can contribute to increased government spending.

Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) said he supports Americans getting money back from the work DOGE is doing, but then he added a caveat: he said any money from DOGE savings would return to them after the budget was balanced. Do not expect a balanced budget anytime soon, so do not expect a DOGE check from the government.

The basics of this plan are more of a PR gimmick to encourage people to support Musk’s and DOGE’s work. Fishback sees that 20 percent of the savings from government spending cuts will be taken and divided by the 80 million Americans paying taxes, and that is how everyone gets money back. Does Fishback believe money will be coming back to Americans any time soon? I cannot tell, but he is a valuable PR spokesman for a fantasy.

In late April, Musk estimated that the work of DOGE led to $160 billion in savings that the government was not spending. Analysts say that what is not calculated in Musk’s figure is the cost. As one analyst put it:

We haven't seen much focus on the waste [DOGE] is creating. …his is an effort created to address waste, but we saw the opposite.

I listened to people discuss DOGE's work, what Musk is doing, and how they saw DOGE eventually benefiting them. What needs to be understood is why voters voted for Trump in the first place. Since many believe there is a distortion about America coming from news media sources, we need to understand how Trump supporters learn, understand, and develop how they look at their country around them, and what they see is happening to it through politics. The late Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon and then Secretary of State, had an excellent quote (I am paraphrasing it), “I don’t watch TV news to learn anything. I watch to see what the man in the street believes is real.” Kissinger understood the gap between a created reality and one much more complicated and nuanced than many would like to believe. This created reality is an essential part of the Trump administration.

In many ways, not trusting the media (a vast and vague conglomerate of different organizations and sources ranging from national newspapers to broadcast TV news to cable news, to Facebook, X, online sites, and others I left out) has become the new normal. Selective attention, filtering, where people who are passionate Trump supporters know what they like, so they get their information from sources that reinforce what they want to believe, will, in some ways, encourage them to develop a feelgood attitude, a pie-in-the-sky outlook, that government money will be flowing to them from more than one government source. One psychology piece stated:

In today’s information-saturated world, filtering is a crucial coping mechanism to prevent cognitive overload. Without it, we’d be paralyzed by the sheer volume of data bombarding us every second. It’s like having a spam filter for your brain, keeping out the junk so you can focus on the important stuff.

However, this filtering process can sometimes throw a wrench in our judgment and problem-solving abilities. Selective abstraction in psychology, for instance, can lead us to focus on a single detail while ignoring the bigger picture. It’s like judging a book by its cover, but worse – you’re judging it by a single word on the cover!

People share misinformation that supports what they want to believe. Misinformation spreads since safeguards to regulate the spread of such information are not present. Echo Chambers exist where only certain types of sources (talk radio, specific online sites, and Fox News or News Max) can reinforce what Trump voters already want to believe is true.

One study noted that only a small percentage of people get information from Echo Chamber environments (about 4 percent). However, as one analyst stated, “These people are so politically involved, they have a disproportionate influence on American politics. They’re often the loudest voices in the room.”

All this matters to how some segment of Americans envisions what they believe will be coming back to them, not just from tax cuts but DOGE savings and the External Revenue Service (which is, at this time, nothing more than a pipedream).

Fishman’s idea was picked up by Trump, who echoed that DOGE has saved lots of money, so Americans deserve a piece of the action. Last week, a Trump PAC email stated, “DOGE checks are in the works!” Here was a crude ploy to ask for money and get people to anticipate that checks are coming in the mail.

However, taking the time to question and analyze DOGE’s savings and then grasp the process by which any money would be coming back to Americans requires more information than many of Trump’s supporters want to take the time to acquire. Nuance in political communication between any administration and voters can be easily lost. Once the $5,000 figure is put aside, the belief that some amount of money will come to them remains a strong belief for some American voters. If the government saves money, then how does that benefit taxpayers?

In the case of Trump creating an External Revenue Service, which would collect money from tariffs going up everywhere, such a new service, interestingly, would be a duplication, an overlap, of what currently exists. Musk has said he is cutting government duplication and overlap. For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has revenue collected at almost 330 ports. There has indeed been an increase in revenue collected from tariffs in April ($15.9 billion) over the amount collected in March ($9.6 billion). There are projections of trillions collected over the next ten years. The problem is that, like an analysis of DOGE and its estimated savings, tariff increases need to be offset by the consequences of the tariff increases.

The number of Chinese freight ships heading to Los Angeles and Long Beach ports has significantly dropped. One site shows that ships that arrived between the first and second week of May were down 44 percent. This is all lost revenue. Added to the dramatic drop in freight ships coming to American ports will be the impact on supply chains. China accounts for 30 percent of all containerized imports into the United States, and supply chain parts and materials are in many containers. Where all this drop in freight traffic not coming to America will take us is open for speculation. One CEO of a company involved in ship traffic stated:

We have no way of knowing how significant this drop in orders will be on vessel schedules. There are no models to extrapolate this. What I can tell you is the majority of containers on the vessels servicing the Asia to U.S. trade routes is China. We won’t go to zero containers, but we will see a decrease in containers and as a result, in the future, we will see a massive raft of blank sailings announced.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs on global supply chains must also be considered when calculating what the External Revenue Service will collect. Just as the loss of revenue of ships arriving at American ports will matter, so will the cost to supply chains. On the supply chain issue, one management analyst stated:

A supply chain is a never-ending loop, right? That’s the purpose of the supply chain, and anybody who wants to improve their supply chain is really looking to better forecast the demand and then plan inventory to it. The tariff activity impacts forecast accuracy, leading companies to pause or cancel orders and beg or plead with vendors.

There is a method of getting the needed supplies and materials associated with Just-in-Time (JIT) ordering. JIT is based on the idea to not to have a large inventory since that can add to business costs. But JIT is dependent on stability and predictability. As a result, the production of many items dependent on a supply chain will be adversely affected, since there will be interruptions in getting needed supplies and materials. Will one of the side effects of Trump’s tariffs lead to companies setting up extensive inventories? That seems unlikely to happen and would add cost to running a business. Try to imagine how Trump’s tariffs will lead to altering business planning. How will that adversely affect the revenue entering the as-yet-to-be-created External Revenue Service?

Again, nuance in political communication might be easily lost on a large segment of the American public as they grapple with understanding where Trump’s tariffs are taking the American economy. If, through selective attention and filtering, the consequences of understanding the broad impact on the American economy are lost on many voters, they still live under the impression that, out of Trump’s transformation of government, they will benefit in some ways. Saying his voters voted for him because they wanted a big shakeup in government leads to questioning how they see it affecting them.

Polls are showing a concern about Trump as a threat to democracy. A recent Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll, for example, showed that a majority of Americans see Trump now as a “dangerous dictator.” At the same time, this poll showed that 44 percent felt that Trump needed to be a strong leader to restore American greatness. An analysis by the Brookings Institution shows that three out of seven “pillars of democracy” are threatened by the Trump administration (protecting elections, defending the rule of law, and fighting corruption). Yet, at the same time, an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll concluded, “More Americans trust Trump to handle the country’s main problems over Congressional Democrats.” In this poll, 72 percent feel that Trump’s policies will lead to a recession. Another report, however, concluded, “Americans, it seems, can both value the idea of democracy and not support it in practice.” A Pew Research Center report from early March listed 20 issues concerning Americans: the threat to democracy was nowhere on that list (money in politics, affordable health care, and inflation were the top three). Put aside the danger to democracy issue, and for many Americans, how they look at Trump and his policies is on a more basic level, and getting money back in their pockets is part of how they evaluate where we are now.

I find it interesting that Trump is not attempting to broaden his appeal to a cross-section of voters. He has his base, and that is it. His voters wanted change, usually understood as meaning that they wanted a smaller government, although that has never meant cuts to Social Security. What will be interesting to see, and it is much too early to decide, is whether Trump’s supporters will feel he has let them down if they do not see any benefits from his policies flowing to them. One study on voters never being satisfied with a change in governments stated:

Public opinion often shifts against new governments – even when their policies seem to align with the preferences of the very citizens who voted them to power.

Indeed, this is one of the most enduring puzzles of democracy. Governments, no matter what they do, often seem unable to satisfy voters. When governments take action, the public often seems to want the opposite. Push policies left, and opinions shift right. Increase spending, and people want cuts.

Just from listening to a few voters, again, I point out that I heard that they wonder when, not if, money will be heading their way, because Trump’s policies have transformed government. At the time of Trump’s inauguration, voters voiced how they looked at him and why they supported him. As one voter stated:

We expect that Trump will usher in a new golden era for America. …This is the beginning of the Roaring Twenties 2.0. You’re going to see so much economic prosperity, the cost of energy going down, while American hegemony increases dramatically. It’s very hopeful right now — way more than his first term.

His voters expect him to deliver this “new golden era.” Change in Washington, where Musk has been allowed to go wild and drastically cut what many voters see as waste in government, is one thing. But as these voters see drastic changes, they will increasingly want to ponder what is in it for them. The expression “bring home the bacon” has been applied to politics for years. Usually, it has been used to describe members of Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives, and their successes or failures in bringing government spending to their Congressional districts. This is different. Trump’s supporters are looking at Trump and what he will deliver to them. It may be one thing to say that he will secure and prominently publicize the border, but that will not address how his supporters view the economy and what they get from it. During Trump’s second term, his supporters may question how his policies are providing a windfall to them. It may take time for the “what’s in it for me” sentiment to emerge more prominently, but it will be coming.

Notes

“AFGE Continues to Debunk Misconceptions About Federal Workers,” AFGE (December 23, 2024): https://www.afge.org/article/afge-continues-to-debunk-misconceptions-about-federal-workers/

“Americans have a negative economic outlook, even as many feel their personal economic situation hasn’t changed,” Ipsos (April 27, 2025): https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-have-negative-economic-outlook-even-many-feel-their-personal-economic-situation-hasnt

Thor Benson, “The Small but Mighty Danger of Echo Chamber Extremism,” Wired (January 28, 2023): https://www.wired.com/story/media-echo-chamber-extremism/

Bonnie Bolden, “Trump PAC emails tease DOGE checks. Will you get $5K stimulus in Mississippi? What to know,” The Clarion Ledger (May 9, 2025): https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pac-emails-tease-doge-141157739.html

Hugh Cameron, “Donald Trump to Launch External Revenue Service: What to Know,” Newsweek (March 25, 2025): https:// www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-external-revenue-service-tariffs-2050135

Bryce Engelland, “The global supply chain’s reaction to the Trump tariffs: Crash, maneuver & stand-by,” Thomson Reuters (April 14, 2025): https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/corporates/supply-chains-reaction-tariffs/

Herbert J. Gans, “Public opinion polls do not always report public opinion,” NiemanLab (April 29, 2013): https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/04/public-opinion-polls-do-not-always-report-public-opinion/

Aaron Hedlund, “Pork-Barrel Politics and Polarization,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (January 19, 2019): https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2019/01/14/pork-barrel-politics-and-polarization

Charles Homans, “What Trump’s Supporters Want for the Future of America,” New York Times (January 27, 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/magazine/trump-supporters-maga-america-future.html

Diccon Hyatt, “Trump’s Revenue is Rolling In,” MSN (April 29, 2025): https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trumps-tariff-revenue-is-rolling-in/ar-AA1DHyeW?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Fatima Hussein, “Trump says he will create an ‘External Revenue Service’ agency to collect tariff income,” AP (January 15, 2025): https:// apnews.com/article/irs-trump-tax-revenues-tariffs-eef2ab6930a8672a418af27f61efaed8

Anna Jackson, “Where Americans stand on the economy, immigration and other issues as Trump addresses Congress,” Pew Research Center (March 3, 2025): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/03/where-americans-stand-on-the-economy-immigration-and-other-issues-as-trump-addresses-congress/

Alexander Kustov, “Good to Know: The public is a thermostat,” GA Good Authority (January 3, 2025): https://goodauthority.org/news/good-to-know-thermostatic-politics-public-opinion/

Lori Ann LaRocco, “Chinese freight ships begin as bookings plummet,” CNBC (April 16, 2025): https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/trade-war-fallout-china-freight-ship-decline-begins-orders-plummet.html

Lori Ann LaRocco, “Chinese freight ship traffic to busiest U.S. ports, Los Angeles, Long Beach, sees steep drop,” CNBC (April 22, 2025): https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/22/busiest-us-ports-see-big-drop-in-chinese-freight-vessel-traffic.html?msockid=01e3558be8e767be2788462ce9e666b8

Aimee Picchi, “DOGE says it has saved $160 billion. Those cuts have cost taxpayers $135 billion, one analysis says,” CBS News (April 28, 2025): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-cuts-cost-135-billion-analysis-elon-musk-department-of-government-efficiency/

NeurolLaunch editorial team, “Filtering Psychology: How Our Minds Selectively Process Information,” NeuroLaunch (September 14, 2024): https://neurolaunch.com/filtering-psychology/

“New poll shocker: Majority of Americans now view Donald Trump as a dangerous dictator amid mounting public concern,” The Economic Times (May 2, 2025): https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/new-poll-shocker-majority-of-americans-now-view-donald-trump-as-a-dangerous-dictator-amid-mounting-public-concern/articleshow/120827322.cms

Billal Rahman, “DOGE Stimulus Check Update: Payments Sent Out Might Not Be $5,000,” Newsweek (March 18, 2025): https://www.newsweek.com/doge-stimulus-checks-payments-james-fishback-2046512

Adam Rose, Ellen Official Giveaway, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/adamrose/permalink/698623046451865/?mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=DH6OUGoQJL4nvxTb&share_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshare%2Fp%2F15Ly8wBasy%2F%3Fmibextid%3DwwXIfr#

Iris Seaton and Marley Malenfant, “Will Americans ever see $5,000 DOGE stimulus checks? Trump campaign emails tease the possibility,” Austin American Statesman (May 1, 2025): https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2025/05/01/will-there-be-a-doge-stimulus-check-hints-from-trump-campaign-emails/83389110007/

Niamh Shackleton, “How much every taxpayer could receive if Donald Trump decides to return DGE dividend,” UNILAD (February 20, 2025): https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/how-much-taxpayers-get-doge-savings-352633-20250220

Todd Spangler and Arpan Lobo, “We asked 100 Michiganders about Trump’s first 100 days: Here’s what they said,” Detroit Free Press (April 30, 2025): https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/30/michigan-trump-first-100-days-reaction/83199104007/

Eric Urby and Jonathan Katz, “Dangerous cracks in US democracy pillars,” Brookings (February 13, 2025): https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dangerous-cracks-in-us-democracy-pillars/

Matthew Wilson, “Supporting ‘democracy’ is hard for many who feel government and the economy are failing them,” The Conversation (May 3, 2024): https://theconversation.com/supporting-democracy-is-hard-for-many-who-feel-government-and-the-economy-are-failing-them-225541