Everyone in the country over the age of 18 is going to get a voucher worth between £75 and £100.
My old boss when I worked in a bar as a student would have called it "money from America".
The saying likely comes from Ulster immigrants making it good working in the new world and sending money back across the Atlantic to their poorer relatives.
My old boss had two successful sons in New York who did just that and she was very grateful.
In this case, however, it's coming from closer to home.
Stormont is keen to use us as conduits to inject money into high streets by having us shap local.
It is the latest scheme the government has come up with to try and get the economy back up and off its knees.
Let's face it, almost every aspect of our lives has been hampered.
There was a similar voucher scheme in Jersey the Executive is looking to copy, but the eligible population of Jersey was around half the size of ours, so there may be a few complications.
If all goes to plan, we should be able to use our vouchers in local shops, restaurants and hotels early in the new year, which is always a lean time for everyone after the spendfest that is Christmas.
They are still figuring it all out, so the age limit might drop to include 16-year-olds and it's possible there'll be strings attached.
Conditions are likely to be laid down as to where we can and can't spend the vouchers. For example, we won't be able to use them for online shopping, for betting shops or for savings, which seems fair enough.
It has got to be a major headache thinking up ways to combat the pandemic and all the chaos it is causing, but there is certainly a school of thought that Stormont has been slower than it should have been.
The other big news is the three-household Christmas.
From December 22 until 28, we're being limited to having no more than three households around the table.
It is a difficult proposition because the bottom line is that the more physical contact we have, the higher the risk of infecting others or catching the virus ourselves.
Opinion seems to be evenly divided among the folk I've heard expressing one.
Some say it is nonsensical to breach the guidelines we've been faithfully following for the last eight or nine months.
Others cite mental health concerns and the desire for human contact, believing relaxing the restrictions to be worth the risk.
Listening to the debates on the effectiveness of such restrictions is certainly confusing. The idea is that placing a generous limit like this will actually encourage people to stick to it or forgo the opportunity altogether.
Some pundits think it's a kind of reverse psychology. We are allowed to put ourselves in harm's way, so we won't. We just want to know we can.
It will be interesting to see what Christmas celebrations we have in our homes. It will all be down to us, after all.
Whether the emergency chairs will once again come out across the land - pouffes from the good rooms, high stools from breakfast bars, step stools from the kitchen, plastic mantrap and folding garden furniture from sheds and folding card-table extensions on the end of dinner tables - is anyone's guess.
Three households can be anything from three single people to 33 famished folk, all in close proximity.
January will tell us everything we need to know.
We could be brandishing our cards and spending freely, or we could be locking down once more.
If that's the case, I suspect our money from America won't be much use because no one will be going anywhere.