Welcome to silly season: the pre-election stretch where both parties float ideas that die the second you ask "and then what?"

There's a season in American politics as predictable as the leaves turning — the stretch before an election when serious people float ideas that would never survive a sober second look, because the only clock that matters is the one counting down to November. We're in it. Two of this month's greatest hits make the point, and then I want to make an argument that isn't about either party.

The $5,000 "vote-for-us" dividend. At the RNC's first-ever midterm convention, the President promised every American adult a $5,000 "Trump Dividend" check — but only if Republicans keep both the House and the Senate. Read that condition again: the check is explicitly tied to how you vote. (Earlier this year the pitch was a $2,000 "tariff dividend"; as the election nears, the imaginary number more than doubled.) There's no plan to pay for it — estimates run north of $1 trillion, and it may run into federal law. When supporters got pressed on the money, they gestured at a grab-bag — tariff revenue, even the new six-figure H-1B visa fees — none of which come close, and all of which are ultimately paid by American consumers and employers. Strip the packaging off and it's: vote a certain way, and the government will maybe mail you money it doesn't have.

The diesel export "ban." With diesel around $6.52/gallon — nearly $3 more than a year ago — the idea surfaced to just ban U.S. diesel exports to force prices down. Sounds tough and simple. It also would have backfired: wall off exports and refiners cut production, which can mean regional shortages and higher prices later, while starving long-term refining investment. Industry warned it, economists warned it, GOP senators split over it — and the administration thankfully backed away.

Here's the honest part: this is not a one-party problem. Democrats run the same play — gas-tax holidays, timed rebates, price-control ideas that create shortages wherever they're tried. It's a system that rewards the short-term move, because for a politician the next election is always just months away. Blaming one team misses the point; the incentive structure is the disease, and the gimmick is just the symptom.

The actual lesson is a habit of mind. Remember the marshmallow test — the kids who could wait for a second marshmallow did better for decades. Adult life is a string of those. The farmer who eats his seed corn starves in spring. The company that guts R&D to juice one quarter gets overtaken for a decade. The family that finances a weekend on a credit card pays for it for a year. The winner is always the one who asks the most powerful question in decision-making — and then what? — and prices in the second- and third-order effects instead of just the first-day headline.

So that's the ask, and it applies to your side too: judge every shiny proposal this season by what happens after the applause. A $5,000 vote-for-us dividend? A trillion on the national credit card. A diesel ban? Shortages. Nearly every gimmick dies at the second "and then what."

Curious where people land: is there a version of any of these (the dividend, the export ban, the gas-tax holiday) that actually survives a second-order analysis — or are they all just November theater? And what's the worst offender you've seen from your own side?

Full piece: commonsenseforamerica.org/posts/political-silly-season