Over the weekend, my brain had what I can only describe as a critical processing error. Normally, I am engaged at my computer ten hours a day. Instead, I chose to lay around and binge Season 2 of The Sandman, which is excellent if you haven't seen it.
What pushed me away from my desk? A meme.
Someone posted the classic Lisa Simpson meme with the text: “None of your problems are because someone else is a billionaire.” Technically, that statement is true. In the narrowest sense, your problems are not because someone else is a billionaire. That being said, I was feeling cheeky and decided to modify the text to say, “All of your problems are because of some billionaire,” which feels closer to the truth.
I am not lumping every billionaire into one category. Some are good, some are bad, and some are not as rich as they look on paper because of the way gross wealth versus liquid assets plays out. When you look at a wealth distribution chart, the problem becomes obvious.
The bottom 90% of Americans have less wealth than the top 10%. The bottom 90% also have access to less wealth than the bottom 50% should have access to. The top 0.1% continue to accumulate more and more wealth. Since the bottom 50% of Americans already share less than 3% of it, the middle class, the 40% in between, is going to keep getting squeezed.
Before going further, it is important to understand that being in the top 10% does not mean having hundreds of millions. You only need a net worth between $900,000 and $1.9 million, depending on the data set. Let that sink in. To be in the top 10% of wealth in America, you need less than $2 million. This raises a question. What does that say about the other 90% who will never reach that level of net worth? What does it say about the system?
It says this. Over the weekend, Elon Musk casually announced the unofficial formation of a political organization, the America Party. The party is unofficial because he has not filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission. The business week is now open, so we will see if he follows through.
Musk’s estimated net worth is over $400 billion. That is enough to buy Disney at $223 billion, buy Comcast (owner of Universal) at $129 billion, and still have roughly $48 billion left over. He could acquire two of the largest entertainment empires on Earth and still never have to worry about money again.
Musk now wants to re-enter American politics. His last venture was as the unofficial figurehead of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration. In October 2024, Musk claimed DOGE could cut at least $2 trillion in federal spending. That figure was later revised to $1 trillion, though he admitted it would be “really difficult.” In the end, DOGE cut between $175 and $190 billion before Musk stepped away.
Could he have cut more with full control? Possibly. Saving $175 billion is a good thing. The problem is that the budget he supported added $280 to $340 billion in new debt annually. In that context, the cuts barely register.
Musk’s return to politics is a mixed bag. His money backing solid candidates and breaking the two-party monopoly could bring real reform. His effectiveness as a leader, however, remains questionable. That applies to his leadership style, his business record, and his personal integrity.
From a business standpoint, the $44 billion purchase of Twitter in 2022, followed by a $33 billion valuation during the XAI deal, reflects either poor judgment in overpaying or an inability to stabilize the platform. It could be both. His stint at DOGE also showed a failure to grasp how government contracts work. Canceling a $10 million contract in the 119th month of a 120-month term is not a $10 million savings. That money is already gone.
His leadership style is marked by aggressive deadlines and intense pressure. Employees are often given wide latitude to solve problems, but are expected to meet sometimes unrealistic expectations. Musk favors a ready-fire-aim approach. That strategy can work in crisis situations where rapid action is better than inaction. It does not translate well to government settings where disruption can ripple through systems for years.
Integrity may also become an issue depending on how deep into politics Musk plans to go. No matter how rich he is, without a constitutional amendment, he cannot buy the White House. Like Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s tax records, and Hunter Biden’s laptop, Musk’s immigration path could become political fodder.
When Musk came to the U.S. in 1995 to pursue a PhD at Stanford, he was on a student visa. He claimed it was a J-1 “student-work” visa that became an H-1B. That may sound good on paper, but “student-work” typically implies you are actually a student. Eventually, he corrected his status and became a naturalized citizen in 2002. If the America Party takes a hardline stance on immigration, this detail could come back to bite him. The party might avoid the issue entirely, but it will be brought up.
Imagine the America Party as a single-issue third party focused solely on balancing the budget, running a surplus, and paying down the national debt. The goal would be to stop spending 18 cents of every federal tax dollar on interest payments.
With his wealth, Musk could bankroll an entire election cycle. At $20 million per House race and $150 million per Senate race, he could pour $13.65 billion into both chambers and attempt to build a legitimate third party infrastructure.
In the House, a full-court press across all 435 races could result in enough seats to control the chamber. A supermajority would require 290 seats, which is unlikely. However, flipping 218 seats for a simple majority is within reach. A more cost-effective approach would be to target 230 winnable districts.
In the Senate, only one-third of the seats are up in each cycle. Winning full control is mathematically impossible, but creating a power bloc is not. Targeting open seats from retirees like Durbin, Shaheen, Tillis, and McConnell could make an impact. Adding a few more candidates could prevent either major party from gaining a majority. That would force bipartisan cooperation or compel one party to work with the America Party. That alone could stop some of the most reckless spending bills from passing.
If Musk files with the FEC, we will know he is serious. Serious action would require a clear strategy. Musk should stay in the boardroom and fund operations. He can serve as a figurehead, raise awareness, emcee rallies, or even wield chainsaws for shock value. Success, however, would depend on hiring a team that understands the rule: slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Government cannot and should not be run like a business, especially when your last major acquisition lost $11 billion in value over three years.
America may need a third party. This might not be the one we were hoping for. Beggars, however, cannot be choosers.