Latest news with #Perot
The Hill
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Viable or not, Musk's alternative disrupts the two-party system
Elon Musk, who has revolutionized the auto industry, launched rockets into space and built a global business empire may now be facing his most daunting challenge yet: shaking up the two-party system in American politics. Put another way, for all of his technological genius, Musk is likely to discover that the same institutional barriers that have long frustrated third-party movements do not discriminate, even for the world's richest man. To be sure, this is not to say that alternatives to the two-party system are not worth exploring. Third parties have a long history in the U.S., and have even played pivotal roles in elections — most recently in 1992, when Ross Perot won nearly 20 percent of the vote. Further, Musk has correctly identified a problem plaguing the two current parties. Voters are increasingly dissatisfied with both of them and express a desire for a viable alternative. Indeed, considerable majorities of Americans feel that both Democrats (69 percent) and Republicans (64 percent) are 'out of touch,' according to Washington Post polling. Similarly, Gallup, which has tracked support for a third party for more than 20 years, reported that nearly 6 in 10 (58 percent) Americans agree that a third major party is needed. Since tracking began in 2003, support has averaged 56 percent, a clear majority. Thinking about Musk's 'America Party' specifically, four in 10 registered voters said they'd be 'very likely' (14 percent) or 'somewhat likely' (26 percent) to vote for it, per polling from Quantus Insights. Taken together, the data strongly suggest that there is an appetite, if not outright desire, for a legitimate third-party option. That said, there are a number of fundamental challenges that have stymied previous third-party movements that Musk would have to overcome. First, despite clear support for the idea, it is likely not enough to overcome the legal, organizational, and institutional barriers that have reinforced the two-party system since the mid-19th century. The two major parties are massive organizations, with national, state and even county-level offices which have developed relationships with local donors and other operatives. Even with Musk's virtually unlimited money, setting up a competing organization on a similar scale, before the 2026 midterms, or even the 2028 presidential election, would be incredibly hard at best, impossible at worst. This is not a new problem for those interested in a third party. Outside of Perot's 1992 finish, there is a long history of third party and independent candidates who fail to make any noise in national elections, partly due to the lack of political infrastructure. Since 1912, only Perot and former President Teddy Roosevelt have received more than 10 percent of the vote as non-major party candidates. Even as recently as 2024 election, No Labels was a well-funded effort to find a different, centrist candidate, but it eventually shut down when it failed to gain traction. Any third party faces also obstacles to ballot access due to rules designed by Democrats and Republicans for the very purpose of preserving a two-party system. Complicating matters further is that each state has different ballot access laws, meaning America Party candidates would need to launch sizable grassroots efforts in every state. For example, California requires minor party candidates to collect 75,000 signatures among voters who are officially switching parties or are first-time voters. In Texas, America Party candidates would need 81,000 signatures within a mandated 75-day timeframe. Other states, such as Florida, require a new party's national committee to be recognized by the state's election commission, members of which are political appointees and thus unlikely to readily approve a new party that would upend the status quo. Of course, it is not impossible for third party candidates to gain ballot access. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. secured enough signatures to get on the ballot in 47 states during his 2024 presidential bid. However, that was one candidate. For Musk's new party to be impactful, it would need to run multiple candidates across dozens of states. The second challenge Musk would face are legitimate concerns that his new party may not attract the candidates or the voters he thinks it will. According to the Quantus Insights poll, the demographics most likely to back the America Party are Republican men (57 percent), independent men (47 percent) and Republican women (43 percent). Far from the 80 percent of Americans Musk claims are in the political middle and open to his party, it appears that he would simply pull votes from the fringes of the Republican Party, where he would be competing with President Trump's influence. To that end, if Musk does simply want to split the 'MAGA' vote, the America Party would likely play an identical role to that of Perot, who siphoned votes off from former President George H.W. Bush and paved the way for Bill Clinton to win the presidency. Finally, what would be the America Party platform? If Musk wants to build a party around making extreme cuts to government spending, he will eventually discover why neither Democrats nor Republicans make serious pushes to cut federal spending: It's unpopular, to the point of making any America Party candidates unviable. Ultimately, even if there are considerable flaws in Musk's third-party idea, it is worth recognizing the growing sense of alienation many Americans feel towards both major parties. Ever-increasing polarization in our political system over recent years has created two parties which, despite bending the rules to preserve their domination, increasingly represent fewer and fewer Americans. This is a significant and very real problem which must be addressed. Even so, Washington, D.C. is not Silicon Valley. The 'move-fast-and-break-things' style that Musk has used to become a generational business leader is less applicable to the political arena, something Musk saw during his time at DOGE, and a lesson he will likely learn again if he commits to funding a third party. Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of 'The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.'
The Hill
a day ago
- Business
- The Hill
Elon Musk is no Ross Perot
The comparisons flood in. Elon Musk launches his 'America Party,' and every pundit reaches for the same tired parallel. Another Ross Perot. Another billionaire maverick. Another third-party earthquake waiting to happen. Wrong. Completely wrong. Musk represents everything Perot opposed. Where Perot stood for fiscal discipline, Musk embodies corporate welfare. Where Perot championed American manufacturing, Musk built his fortune on government funding and Chinese batteries. Where Perot offered genuine outsider credentials, Musk carries the stench of establishment cronyism. The surface similarities deceive. Both men possess massive wealth. Both nurse grudges against sitting presidents. Both promise to shake up the system. The differences run deeper than the Delaware River. Perot emerged from genuine business success. He built Electronic Data Systems from nothing. He created real value, real jobs, real innovation. His wealth came from solving actual problems, not gaming government handouts. Musk built his empire on taxpayer subsidies. Tesla survived on government credits. SpaceX feeds off NASA contracts. His companies consume public money like a Vegas slot machine consumes quarters. He represents the opposite of Perot's self-made independence. The timing exposes another crucial difference. Perot entered politics during America's economic malaise. Recession gripped the nation. Deficits soared. Voters craved fiscal responsibility. His message matched the moment. Musk launches his party during economic recovery. Stock markets reach record highs. Unemployment stays low. His fiscal responsibility message lands like a lead balloon in a helium factory. More importantly, Perot possessed something Musk lacks entirely: credibility on his core issue. When Perot talked about budget deficits, people listened. He had never taken government handouts. He understood business efficiency. He could legitimately claim outsider status. Musk talking about government waste sounds like a meth addict lecturing about sobriety. His companies gorged themselves on federal subsidies for decades. He personally benefited from programs he now claims to oppose. The hypocrisy stinks from orbit. The political landscape has also shifted dramatically since 1992. Perot faced two establishment candidates, the president, George H.W. Bush and his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. Voters hungered for alternatives. The third-party lane stretched wide and inviting. Today's political map offers no such opening. Trump already occupies the anti-establishment space. He owns the outsider brand, despite being president. Musk cannot out-populist the master populist. The media environment has transformed beyond recognition. In 1992, Perot could command television attention through sheer novelty. Cable news was young. Social media did not exist. A billionaire buying airtime could reach millions of uncommitted voters. Now everyone screams into the digital void. Attention spans shrink by the nanosecond. Musk's X antics already overexpose him. His brand suffers from overexposure, not invisibility. Perot also offered policy substance beneath the theatrics. His deficit charts bored audiences, yet they conveyed serious proposals. He understood complex economic issues. His solutions made mathematical sense, even if they were politically unrealistic. Musk offers conspiracy theories and vanity projects. His policy knowledge barely scratches the surface. He confuses tweeting with governing. He mistakes social media engagement for political support. The coalition mathematics doom Musk from the start. Perot drew votes from both parties roughly equally. His appeal crossed traditional lines. Fiscal conservatives and government skeptics existed in both camps. Musk's potential supporters cluster overwhelmingly on the right. He cannot build a truly bipartisan coalition. Democratic voters despise him. His only hope lies in cannibalizing Republican support. This creates a fatal strategic problem. Every vote Musk gains likely comes from Trump's column. He cannot expand the anti-establishment coalition because he lacks cross-party appeal. He can only divide it. The structural barriers have hardened since Perot's time. Ballot access requirements have increased. Campaign finance laws favor established parties. The debate commission now excludes third parties more effectively. Perot qualified for the presidential debates in 1992. Those appearances legitimized his candidacy. Current rules make such inclusion nearly impossible. Without debate access, third parties wither in obscurity. The fundamental character differences matter most. Perot, for all his quirks, projected competence. He ran a disciplined campaign. He stayed on message. He treated politics seriously. Musk treats everything as a game. He changes positions hourly. He picks fights on social media. He lacks the temperament for sustained political combat. Perot understood American voters. He spoke their language. He shared their concerns. He offered real solutions to real problems. Musk lives in a Silicon Valley bubble. He mistakes X for reality. He confuses online engagement with electoral support. He fundamentally misunderstands the American electorate. The comparison insults Perot's legacy. He may have been eccentric, demanding and difficult, but he changed American politics permanently. He forced both parties to address fiscal responsibility. He proved that third parties could compete. Musk offers nothing comparable — no serious policy agenda, no coherent vision, no sustainable coalition. His proposed new party is just another billionaire's vanity project disguised as political reform. The America Party will follow the same trajectory as Musk's other attention-grabbing schemes — media frenzy, gradual reality, ultimate failure. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
Politico
6 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Advice for Elon Musk from the Most Successful Third-Party Campaign in Modern History
A new third party created by a billionaire, born out of frustration with the ballooning federal deficit and the two-party system. We're talking about Ross Perot's Reform Party, of course. The parallels to Elon Musk and his America Party are obvious, but Musk may be lucky to get as far as Perot did. The Texas businessman won roughly 19 percent of the popular vote when he ran for president in 1992 — the most successful bid by any independent candidate in modern history — and took in nearly 8.5 percent in 1996. His Reform Party became, at least briefly, a real political force to be reckoned with, even catapultinga former professional wrestler into a governor's office. But it was ultimately no match for the U.S.'s two-party system, and its influence fizzled out by the 21st century. Could Musk succeed where Perot didn't? We asked Russell Verney, a top adviser to Perot's presidential campaigns and a former chair of the Reform Party — and Verney isn't optimistic. 'It's not something you do by posting on Twitter that you have a political party. It takes a lot more work than that,' Verney said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. Still, Verney said Musk's efforts might still have an impact. Despite Perot's defeat, his clamoring for deficit reduction reshaped the political debate and fueled President Bill Clinton's push for a balanced budget. Musk could have similar sway, if he puts in the work. 'My basic advice is: Go to rehab and then focus on creating a new political party from a position of seriousness, not of anger, not of retribution, not of retaliation,' Verney said. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What do you think of Elon Musk's third-party bid? What do you think Ross Perot would have thought of it? Well, I think his use of the term third party is tremendously vague. It's not what he's doing: He's not creating a political party, he's creating a political committee that is going to encourage people to run and may make independent expenditures on their behalf. A political party essentially has a big structure, and the most important asset of a political body is ballot access — in other words, the right to place the name of its candidate on the general election ballot. Musk doesn't have that. He may assist people to get ballot access, but the candidates themselves are going to have to get the ballot access. Now whether or not it can be effective, absolutely, third parties don't have to win to be effective. Ross Perot in 1992 took a very obscure issue — deficit spending and accumulated national debt — and explained it to the American public. And for the first time since the Eisenhower administration, in 1998, Bill Clinton actually balanced the budget for two years, and it hasn't been balanced since then. That was a result of the support that Perot got. Once somebody starts showing voters support their position, the Republicans and Democrats want to co-opt those voters. They want to attract them into their party to support their re-election, because all candidates really stand for is elections. It's not about progress. It's not about making America great. It's just about elections. They want to attract anybody who voted for an alternative candidate to support them, to help them win the election. So if Elon Musk's candidates start coming up with a coherent message and start showing some support, it's going to have a big impact on both the Republican and Democratic Party. A third political party is a lot of work. It's a major undertaking, and it can't be done overnight, because you can't even create — officially create — a legitimate political party until after an election. You have to actually get votes in many states in order to obtain and retain ballot access. And after you've gotten ballot access in enough states, you can petition the Federal Election Commission to become a national political party. The Reform Party did that. The Libertarian Party did that. There are lots of others that have tried and failed. It's not something you do by posting on Twitter that you have a political party. It takes a lot more work than that. So he has expressed an idea. He's starting from a very basic position, and it's going to be a long, long time before he actually has a competitive political party. He can form alliances with other groups out there, and impact certain issues, certain specific elections, but not compete nationally. But that doesn't mean he won't have an impact. Perot was the most successful third-party candidate in modern history. You helped run his campaigns and build the Reform Party. What advice do you have for Musk when it comes to building a new party? My basic advice is: Go to rehab and then focus on creating a new political party from a position of seriousness, not of anger, not of retribution, not of retaliation. It's a very significant mission. You're going to be asking millions of people to volunteer, to assist you to accomplish that and to support your activities, and they need a serious leader, not somebody who's flamboyant. What are some current issues that a third party should focus on? Where do you see an opportunity for a third party in terms of its platform? In 1992, when Ross Perot first ran, there was a desire for change from business as usual, and it's only grown since then. In the 2016 election, the people that took a chance on Donald Trump were looking for change from business as usual. I don't think they anticipated the dimension of the change they were going to get, and maybe they're happy with it. I don't know. I don't do polling. I don't know who they are, but it seems to me that the system has gotten worse, not better. Inflation is likely to occur as a result of tariffs. There's chaos that's being created in municipalities like Los Angeles over this absurd mission to deport people who've been living here for years. We could've solved the immigration problem, not just with the bill that was in the last session of Congress, any time in the last couple of decades, we could have solved it, except that Democrats like to create future voters, and Republicans like cheap labor. And you see with President Trump, he jumped out there and exempted cheap labor. He didn't want them going after the meat processing and chicken processing farms and agriculture. He wanted to keep the cheap labor. So 'let's get rid of them' — what is it we're after? Are we after the criminals? Are we after everybody with brown skin and in between? I think that's confusing the public, and there will be more discontent as you get towards the next election. The atmosphere for a third party just continues to grow, but it's got to be a sensible, focused, responsible effort to create a political party What did the Reform Party's supporter base look like? Do you think Elon Musk's party will attract a similar crowd? The Reform Party essentially said that we want fiscal responsibility and government reform, and not go down the rabbit holes of social issues, cultural issues. And we set out 10 principles that were very clear and easily understood, and we just kept a narrow focus on it. That's pretty much where the focus can be going forward. Certainly fiscal issues, because this budget bill that just passed, it's going to add $4 trillion to the national debt, which then increases the cost of our debt service, which is money that doesn't provide a minute of education, a mile of a highway or a single soldier to defend the nation. It's wasted money. We've got to get that under control. That will be an issue, and government reform issues can still be very valuable. I think, after some of the devastation we've seen in government agencies in the first six months of this year, there's a whole lot of rebuilding to be done. The public is very welcoming of something that's changed from business as usual, whether it's the Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter. What they want is something that's more substantive and less performative. And I think there's very fertile ground there for that. You mentioned explicitly that the Reform Party tried to avoid social and cultural issues. Do you think that's possible for a third party in our current political climate? Absolutely. Basically cultural issues are fundraising issues, not governing issues. They're all about raising funds for people on each side of a cultural issue, but they're not about governing. How many years was Roe v. Wade in existence, and every year, both sides raised tons of money off of it, but nobody ever made a serious attempt to codify it as a law. So now maybe they will make good, serious efforts, but again, it will become a social issue that is basically a fundraising drive, regardless of whether or not it ever is changed. We haven't seen third parties find much success since the Reform Party in the 1990s. Why is that? All political parties have internal dynamics — some inhibit their growth, some can help their growth — but the biggest impediment to a third party is ballot access. Obtaining the right to place your candidate on virtually all state ballots all across the country is a humongous job. Once you've gotten it, you then have to maintain it, usually every four years in many states. This keeps the focus of the third party — political parties that are just starting — simply on obtaining the right to place their candidate on the ballot, as opposed to supporting competitive candidates against the other parties. They exhaust themselves both financially and resource-wise with ballot access. So they have little opportunity to accomplish any goals in the early stages, which would attract more support. There have been growing concerns about billionaires getting involved in politics and using their money to amass more power and influence — a criticism you and Perot faced when he ran for president. How do you respond to those critiques, especially in this day and age? When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, a lot of people took the position that it's not a big deal having a billionaire run, because they can't be corrupted. They're too rich. Well, we don't see that today with all those cryptocurrencies and airplanes for $400 million and construction deals in foreign countries. We're seeing that maybe that's not so true. Maybe you can influence a billionaire. I think there are a lot of billionaires out there that have an eye on 'Can I contribute? I've been very successful in private industry. Can I bring that to the public sector and have an impact for good?' And it depends on whether or not they've got a social conscience, whether or not they've been working over the years on social issues for the betterment of society, as opposed to just working for themselves. A guy like Ross Perot, he was a very successful businessman. But at the same time, he was very engaged in government. He headed up a task force in Texas for reforming education. He was involved in the war on drugs. He was one of the first individuals nationwide to assist in fundraising for AIDS research, and he championed veterans' issues. He supported the military in many, many respects. He had a long history of social engagement for the public benefit. That's a distinction between a billionaire who has just been amassing riches for himself and not contributing to the social community. Would you say Elon Musk has that social conscience? Is it a good thing that a billionaire like Elon Musk is jumping to create his own third party? I haven't seen anything that Elon Musk has contributed to a social environment. He's contributed to those companies he's purchased, but I don't know that he's actually assisting people. Is there anything you wish you had done differently with the Reform Party? I wish we won! With the Perot campaign, clearly there was one thing. In 1992 there was a debate: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot debated, and over and over again in those debates, you'll hear George Bush and Bill Clinton each saying, 'I agree with Mr. Perot, and we should do that.' So in other words, 'He's right, but he can't win. I'm the one closest to him. We can win.' And it became a vote for Perot is a wasted vote because he can't win. The exit polling that was done in the '92 election — an analysis of it that was done by Dr. Gordon Black and his son found that if people thought Perot could win, he could have won that election. So the 'wasted vote' thing, we didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it in the campaign. We were talking about issues. If I have a regret, it's that we should have done something to counter the 'wasted vote' attacks. But other than that, no, the Reform Party was a great adventure, and I'm glad to have been a part of it and created some history. How do you convince people that a third-party vote isn't a wasted vote, though? That's been a constant hurdle for any independent candidate. You've got to reverse the attack that is put on candidates that come out of the private sector, that you have no experience. Yeah, we have no experience running up $30 trillion of debt. We have no experience destroying our education system, and go on through all the issues that are out there. So it's not a wasted vote for me. It's a wasted vote for them, unless you're perfectly happy with the country that's heading in the wrong direction. How do you keep the momentum going with third parties? What can Musk and his party do to remain relevant election after election? Well, that's a big question, because what's going to happen is Elon Musk has very, very deep pockets. Assuming that he's willing to bankroll a lot of this effort to create the third party, every con-person in America is going to be latching onto that. They see the money, they go for it. It's going to be tough to weed through the self-promoters. He's going to wind up with candidates that are not credible, that are using him and his organization. He's going to wind up with competition within his new organization: Let's say two people want to run for Congress in a specific district, how do they decide which one? No matter how they do it, somebody's going to be a loser, and that loser is going to have sore feelings. They may create problems, and it becomes difficult. It's worth the effort, though. It's important to have people trying to build. Everyone can make a difference, to some extent. It continues to pave the way for future third parties to grow.
Business Journals
23-06-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
Navigating leadership: A Compass Fireside Chat with Ross Perot Jr. and retired Adm. Patrick M. Walsh
The Compass School of Texas concluded its 2024-2025 Fireside Chat season with a panel on navigating leadership, featuring Ross Perot Jr., and Adm. Patrick M. Walsh. Attendees gathered at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science to hear from Perot, the chairman of The Perot Companies and Hillwood; and Walsh, the president of Cristo Rey Dallas and retired U.S. Navy four-star admiral. Opening remarks were given by Linda Silver, Ed.D., the Eugene McDermott CEO of the Perot Museum. 'Our mission to inspire minds through nature and science complements the work of The Compass School, so perfectly,' said Silver. The discussion was moderated by Peter Brundage, senior managing director at Evercore, who posed questions for the audience to gain insight into becoming, creating and employing great leaders. It all starts with education and giving. Walsh attributed early success to his years at Jesuit, afforded to him by generous individuals through scholarship funds, while Perot recognized the programming at The St. Mark's School of Texas from the parent perspective and training taught in the Boy Scouts of America. In looking at the next generation, Perot emphasized the demand for more academic institutions in Dallas to hone the skills desired for great leaders. 'You've got incredible young men and women that need phenomenal education. Compass is needed. It's going to continue to add to the growth of the region,' he said. expand Compass opened in 2023 and has grown from 43 students to 102 students, pre-K through fourth grade, with plans to expand to eighth grade. Through intentional partnerships, the school offers students opportunities to dive into real-world skills, like financial literacy, sustainability and public speaking. Compass enhances its education through cross-curricular learning, integrating STEM, daily Spanish, art, music and a signature Farm-to-Table program with its core classes. The curriculum combines a rigorous academic approach with hands-on experiences that aim to shape children into compassionate students, global ambassadors, critical thinkers and confident leaders. The conversation included many common themes on true leadership with a strong focus on integrity and altruism. When dissecting the qualities of accomplished leaders, Walsh said, 'There's an element of capacity that is just never exceeded. True leaders always find capacity.' Upon reflection of his own involvement in emergency response in Japan after the 2011 tsunami, Walsh realized it is not always about having the loudest voice or the best ideas. 'Part of building an organization is just showing people how much you care,' he said. This sentiment was shared by Perot, who stressed living by these principles in his own company, noting this mindset is why many employees on his leadership team have been with their company for more than 30 years. 'Somebody gets sick, we're going to find the best doctors, and we don't care what it costs. When you take care of people that way, you've got partners for life. The type of people that are attracted to our companies; they want that high achievement.' expand Perot's main takeaway for the night was that 'It's about others and it's about giving and about taking care of people. It's about making your city, your state, your country and the world a better place to live.' His insight speaks volumes to the spirit of generosity embedded in the business community of Dallas. It is the same mentality that sparked a sense of stewardship in the Compass School of Texas founding team when developing the Fireside Chat series. Frances Mitchell, co-founder of The Compass School of Texas, said, 'Having these remarkable leaders share their time and wisdom is truly invaluable. Hosting the Fireside Chat series allows Compass to share inspiring knowledge and partner with the community beyond our campus.' Each event is open to the public and designed to extend the learning experience by providing expert knowledge on core values instilled in the Compass students — community, family, leadership, purpose and resilience.
Epoch Times
09-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Trump Reverses Course, Says GOP Should ‘Probably Not' Increase Taxes on Wealthy
President Donald Trump on Friday delivered his clearest remarks yet on whether he wants Republicans to include a provision raising taxes on wealthier Americans, saying that it's 'probably not' a good idea. 'The problem with even a 'tiny' tax increase for the rich, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, ' Trump 'No, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm ok if they do.' Perot was a businessman and third-party presidential candidate who ran in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. In the 1992 election, Perot garnered 18 percent of the vote and was widely believed to have taken votes from Bush in his reelection campaign. A source close to Trump Specifically, Trump had been considering reestablishing the top individual income tax rate for people earning $2.5 million or more from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, the person said. The source added that the higher rates on wealthier Americans would help offset tax cuts for the middle class and working class, and it would also not force Republicans to slash funding for Medicaid, the government-operated health care service used by millions of poorer Americans. Related Stories 5/9/2025 5/9/2025 But last month, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he was opposed to the idea, 'We're the Republican Party and we're for tax reduction for everyone,' he said. During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security payments to seniors, and overtime. He reiterated in a post on Truth Social earlier this week that he wants to accomplish those things. 'We are going to do no tax on tips, no tax on seniors' social security, no tax on overtime, and much more. It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far, and it is time for Main Street to win,' he The current legislative plan calls for offsetting tax cuts by reducing spending on the Medicaid health care program for lower-income Americans and nutrition support programs and by eliminating popular environmental tax credits, changes opposed by Republican centrists. 'The spending reduction side of this equation has been the most challenging, which is a sad commentary on my party and my conference. But it's the reality,' House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters. Arrington and other House Republicans said failure to achieve $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade would jeopardize Trump's hopes of making his 2017 tax cuts permanent. A higher tax rate on the wealthy could provide added revenues to compensate for cuts elsewhere. Reuters contributed to this report.
