The Treasury secretary told a House committee the department is examining whether it needs Congress at all to mail the $5,000 the president promised adults for keeping Congress Republican, in the same week 750,000 people lost their health coverage with no vote required.

…(cont) Friday, Senator Susan Collins called the proposal "extraordinarily costly," observing that "the proposed $5,000 dividend would not have an income cap." The same day The Hill reported that Bret Baier had pressed Texas Attorney General and Senate nominee Ken Paxton, on Thursday, over his support for it. Saturday, at the Kansas State Fair, a moderator cited the proposal's $1.2 trillion cost and asked Senator Roger Marshall whether he supported it; The Hill's headline word for what followed is "backtracks." Sunday, Representative Mike Lawler went on ABC and began, "I support putting money back in the pockets of hard-working," then arrived at "How do you pay for it?" The same Sunday, Representative Mike Flood said the priority "should be funding our troops and replenishing our" — the sentence runs off the page there, but the direction is clear. Monday, National Review ran "Trump's Reckless $5,000 'Dividend.'" Monday, the columnist Guy Benson called it "a disastrous idea" and added, "I am skeptical we're ever going to see that, and I don't think we should, frankly," noting conservatives would scream "bloody murder" if a Democratic president offered a dividend to maintain power. The Hill reported that Republican lawmakers warn they will not support giving away money to people who do not work or pay taxes.

Count the room: two senators, a Senate nominee, two House members, a magazine, a columnist. Every one of them would have to vote the money or write about the people who do.

Tuesday resolved the problem. All together now — the Washington Examiner, Tuesday, two sentences in order:

"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Treasury Department is looking at President Donald Trump's plan to provide adults with $5,000 checks and suggested it might be possible to issue the money without authorization from Congress."

"Bessent, testifying on Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee, indicated that the administration is looking at ways that it […]"

The bracket is the Examiner's. The thought went on past the margin, and so, apparently, does the department.

Hold the two halves up together, because they only work as a pair: the money arrives if voters return a Republican Congress, and the department is examining whether a Congress is required to send the money. The condition and the mechanism are not on speaking terms. Nobody in the hearing room is reported to have mentioned which branch appropriates. Everyone was very polite about it.

The Examiner also reported that Philadelphia's district attorney called the dividend a bribe; the headline treats the district attorney as the story.

Now the other announcement. That Tuesday the administration said it is removing at least 750,000 people from their Affordable Care Act coverage because they were "fraudulently" enrolled. Cynthia Cox of KFF said fraud undoubtedly exists in the marketplaces, noting that "some brokers have enrolled people without their knowledge or switched their plans so the broker could get a commission on the sale." Read that twice. The person enrolled without their knowledge is the person removed. Wednesday, the Times reported the signature bill's health care and food assistance cuts are taking a toll before the election. Wednesday, CBS asked when relying on several forms of credit to cover expenses becomes a warning sign.

So the ledger for the week: $5,000 per adult, promised on a condition, under examination for delivery without a vote; coverage withdrawn from 750,000, no condition, no vote required. Governor Gavin Newsom's word for the promise was "bulls—." The copy desk cut his letters. It did not cut the number.