Category: Government

Covid Loan Programs Passed by Congress Were “Comically Easy to Scam”

In a WSJ op-ed, I tell how a fraudster received a $42,200 Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan in my name for an alleged “Arthur M.D. Potato Farm.” As discussed in the NYT passages quoted below, there was also massive fraud in other related Congress-funded Small Business Administration Covid boondoggle programs. The NYT article blames the Trump Administration, but in my struggle to clear up the potato farm fraud case, a S.B.A. official told me that the Congress in 2020 put enormous pressure on the S.B.A. to get the money out the door as quickly as possible. The House of Representatives, which takes the lead in spending legislation, was controlled by the Democratic Party.

In the passages quoted below, “P.P.P.” means “Paycheck Protection Program” and “E.I.D.L.” means “Economic Injury Disaster Loan.”

(p. B4) An emergency relief program hastily rolled out in the early days of the pandemic had such poor fraud protections that it improperly doled out nearly $4.5 billion to self-employed people who said they had additional workers — even those who made wildly implausible claims, like having one million employees.

The $20 billion program, called the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advance, offered small businesses immediate grants of up to $10,000 in the months after the pandemic shuttered much of the economy. But hundreds of thousands of the grants it made were inflated because there was no system to catch applications with “flawed or illogical information,” Hannibal Ware, the Small Business Administration’s inspector general, wrote in a report released on Thursday [Oct. 7, 2021].

. . .

. . . the S.B.A. skipped an obvious safeguard: It did not require sole proprietors claiming to have employees to enter their Employer Identification Number, instead allowing them to use their Social Security numbers.

. . .

Some of the claims were outright absurd. Hundreds of applicants received the maximum grants after saying that they employed more than 500 workers, a number that would generally make them ineligible for the small business program. Fifteen said they had one million employees — a figure that would put them in league with Amazon and Walmart.

The Small Business Administration “never requested additional information from these sole proprietors to verify the number of employees cited on their grant applications before approving and disbursing the grants,” Mr. Ware said in his report.

. . .

. . . a Bloomberg article last year described how almost comically easy it was to scam the system. It cited how-to videos that circulated on YouTube with titles like “$10k SBA Loans & GRANTS Got The STREETS Going CRAZY!”

. . .

The Justice Department has already prosecuted hundreds of cases involving fraudulent claims across the government’s $1 trillion small business pandemic relief programs, reclaiming more than $600 million.

But that is only a sliver of the amount lost to bogus claims. A March memo by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis identified an estimated $84 billion in suspected fraud in the P.P.P. and E.I.D.L. programs after the Trump administration “refused to implement basic controls.”

Mr. Ware told a House committee in April [2021] that his office had opened more than 400 cases involving the agency’s assorted relief programs.

“Fraud investigations will be a decades-long effort,” he said.

For the full story see:

Stacy Cowley. “S.B.A. Paid $4.5 Billion on Bogus Grant Claims.” The New York Times (Friday, October 8, 2021 [sic]): B4.

(Note: ellipses, bracketed date, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 7, 2021 [sic], and has the title “S.B.A. Overpaid $4.5 Billion on ‘Illogical’ Small Business Grant Claims.”)

$700 Million Deployed for Harris by an “Elusive” Expert on Randomized Clinical-Trials

“The biggest super PAC in American politics” (p. 1) is spending $700 million on ads to elect Harris, more than the combined expenditures of both the official campaign of Harris and the official campaign of Trump (p. 1). “Leading the group” (p. 19) is an “elusive” PhD named Chauncy McLean, who has “ascended in the party by displaying encyclopedic knowledge of randomized controlled-trials” (p. 19). If Harris wins will that be more due to her overwhelming advantage in funding or more due to the methods used to spend the funds? (Or will the results depend more on how much Americans remember the record of Trump compared to how much they remember the record of Biden-Harris?)

For the full story see:

Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher. “Super PAC Places $700 Million Bet On Harris’s Bid.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, October 20, 2024): 1 & 19.

“Mass Deportation” Is Not in Trump’s Heart, but Is a Warning to Future Illegal Aliens

I am stressed by the image of the “mass deportation” of those who entered the U.S. illegally, but otherwise have been decent hard-working people. My plausible hope is that deep in his heart, Trump does not really mean it or plan it. Why “plausible”? Read the passage quoted below describing Trump’s visit with The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

At this year’s Republican National Convention, Mr. Trump vowed to undertake “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” Editorial board member Kyle Peterson asks how large—does Mr. Trump intend to deport aliens who are law-abiding except for their illegal presence in the country, even if they have American spouses and children? Maybe not, Mr. Trump says: “We have a lot of good people in this country, and we have to do something about it, and I’d like to see if we can do it.”

Pressed for specifics, he demurs: “Well, I don’t want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally.” When he was president, “I said, ‘We’re going to separate your family.’ . . . It doesn’t sound nice, but when a family hears they’re going to be separated, you know what they do? They stay where they are, because we couldn’t handle it. . . . But the interest from the heart, yeah, something’s going to be done. . . . I mean, there’s some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too. OK?”

The implication is that the optimal immigration policy is a happy medium between restriction and openness. That’s certainly true and perhaps a truism. Mr. Trump suggests that he, the bully with a heart of gold, is just the man to strike the balance.

For the full commentary/interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; Trump Tangles With the Journal’s Editors.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, October 18, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses in original.)

Europeans Tire of Costly and Ineffective Climate Transition Policies

(p. A15) The 2015 Paris Agreement aspired to “reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” by eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions in the latter half of this century. The centerpiece of the strategy was a global transition to low-emission energy systems.

. . .

U.S. and European governments are trying to induce an energy transition by building or expanding organizations and programs favoring particular “clean” technologies, including wind and solar generation, carbon capture, hydrogen production and vehicle electrification. Promoting technological innovation is a worthy endeavor, but such efforts face serious challenges as costs and disruptions grow without tangible progress in reducing local, let alone global, emissions. Retreats from aggressive goals are already under way in Europe, with clear signs of mandate fatigue. The climbdown will be slower in the U.S., where subsidies create constituencies that make it more difficult to reverse course.

. . . It means that today’s ineffective, inefficient, and ill-considered climate-mitigation strategies will be abandoned, making room for a more thoughtful and informed approach to responsibly providing for the world’s energy needs.

For the full commentary see:

Steven E. Koonin. “The ‘Climate Crisis’ Fades Out.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, June 11, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 10, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Koonin’s commentary, quoted above, is related to his book:

Koonin, Steven E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2021.

Charter School Founder Stood Up to “Education Bureaucrats”

The NYT ran an inspiring obituary for Joseph H. Reich last Tuesday. Reich and his wife were pioneers in the Charter School initiative. The obituary quotes them as saying that they were able to afford to send their own children to private school, but poor parents who want better for their children than what is on offer by the government public schools could not afford a similar option. They were quoted as saying “We recoil against this injustice.” They created one of the first charter schools and also donated $10 million for general support of charter schools. The obituary says that they stood up against “vigorous pushback from education bureaucrats.”

For the full obituary see:

Trip Gabriel. “Joseph H. Reich, 89, Pioneer of New York City’s Charter Schools, Dies.” The New York Times (Tuesday, October 15, 2024): A21.

Green Energy Subsidies Do Not Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption

(p. A13) Regular readers may feel vindicated by a new study this week in the prestigious journal Science. It examines 1,500 “climate” policies adopted around the world and finds only 63—or 4%—produced any emissions reductions. Even so, press accounts strained to muddy the study’s simple lesson so let’s spell it out: Taxing carbon reduces emissions. Subsidizing “green energy” doesn’t.

In fact, this should be old hat. One of the most cited papers in climate economics is 2012’s “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” by the University of Oregon’s Richard York. His answer: not “when net effects are considered.”

Mr. York and a colleague returned with a 2019 empirical paper showing that while “renewable energy sources compose a larger share of overall energy production, they are not replacing fossil fuels but are rather expanding the overall amount of energy that is produced.”

. . .

The 2023 data have arrived. Fossil-fuel use, emissions and green energy all have grown right alongside each other, as economics predicted. Global emissions finally broke the 40 gigaton threshold, having doubled since 1984.

For the full commentary see:

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “Business World; Follow the Science: Biden Climate Policy Is a Fraud.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug. 24, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date August 23, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The recent Science paper mentioned above is:

Stechemesser, Annika, Nicolas Koch, Ebba Mark, Elina Dilger, Patrick Klösel, Laura Menicacci, Daniel Nachtigall, Felix Pretis, Nolan Ritter, Moritz Schwarz, Helena Vossen, and Anna Wenzel. “Climate Policies That Achieved Major Emission Reductions: Global Evidence from Two Decades.” Science 385, no. 6711 (Aug. 22, 2024): 884-92.

York’s 2012 paper mentioned above is:

York, Richard. “Do Alternative Energy Sources Displace Fossil Fuels?” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 6 (June 2012): 441-43.

York’s 2019 paper mentioned above is:

York, Richard, and Shannon Elizabeth Bell. “Energy Transitions or Additions?: Why a Transition from Fossil Fuels Requires More Than the Growth of Renewable Energy.” Energy Research & Social Science 51 (May 2019): 40-43.

People Thinking about the Rules They Have to Obey, Are Not Thinking about the Problems They Have to Solve

(p. A18) . . . I looked into the growing bureaucratization of American life. It’s not only that growing bureaucracies cost a lot of money; they also enervate American society. They redistribute power from workers to rule makers, and in so doing sap initiative, discretion, creativity and drive.

Once you start poking around, the statistics are staggering. Over a third of all health care costs go to administration. As the health care expert David Himmelstein put it in 2020, “The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy.” All of us who have been entangled in the medical system know why administrators are there: to wrangle over coverage for the treatments doctors think patients need.

. . .

In every organization I’ve interacted with, the administrators genuinely want to serve the mission of the organization, but the nature of their jobs is to enforce compliance with this or that rule.

Their power is similar to what Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has called the “time tax.” If you’ve ever fought a health care, corporate or university bureaucracy, you quickly realize you don’t have the time for it, so you give up. I don’t know about you, but my health insurer sometimes denies my family coverage for things that seem like obvious necessities, but I let it go unless it’s a major expense. I calculate that my time is more valuable.

As Philip K. Howard has been arguing for years, good organizations give people discretion to do what is right. But the trend in public and private sector organizations has been to write rules that rob people of the power of discretion. These are two different mentalities. As Howard writes, “Studies of cognitive overload suggest that the real problem is that people who are thinking about rules actually have diminished capacity to think about solving problems.”

. . .

. . ., Mark Edmundson teaches literature at the University of Virginia. The annual self-evaluations he had to submit used to be one page. Now he has to fill out about 15 electronic pages of bureaucratese that include demonstrating how his work advances D.E.I., to make sure his every waking moment conforms to the reigning ideology.

In a recent essay in Liberties Journal, he illustrates how administrators control campus life . . .

. . .

Organizations are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits, but the whole administrative apparatus comes with an implied view of human nature. People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lives. They have to be trained never to take initiative, lest they wander off into activities that are deemed by the authorities to be out of bounds.

The result is the soft despotism that Tocqueville warned us about centuries ago, a power that “is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.” In his Liberties essay, Edmundson writes that this kind of power is now centerless. Presidents and executives don’t run companies, universities or nations. Power is now held by everyone who issues work surveys and annual reports, the people who create H.R. trainings and collect data. He concludes: “They are using the terms of liberation to bring more and more free people closer to mental serfdom. Some day they will awaken in a cage of their own devising, so harshly confining that even they, drunk on their own virtue, will have to notice how their lives are the lives of snails tucked in their shells.”

Trumpian populism is about many things, but one of them is this: working-class people rebelling against administrators. It is about people who want to lead lives of freedom, creativity and vitality, who find themselves working at jobs, sending their kids to schools and visiting hospitals, where they confront “an immense and tutelary power” (Tocqueville’s words) that is out to diminish them.

For the full commentary see:

David Brooks. “Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts.” The New York Times (Friday, January 18, 2024): A18.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date January 19, 2024, and has the title “Lessons of the Trump Assassination Attempt.”)

The article by Lowrey mentioned above is:

Lowrey, Annie. “The Time Tax; Why Is So Much American Bureaucracy Left to Average Citizens?” The Atlantic, July 27, 2021. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/how-government-learned-waste-your-time-tax/619568/

The academic paper co-authored by Himmelstein that underlies the Reuters article cited by Brooks above is:

Himmelstein, David, Terry Campbell, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017.” Annals of Internal Medicine (2020) doi:10.7326/M19-2818.

The article by Howard mentioned above is:

Howard, Philip K. “Bureaucracy Vs. Democracy.” The American Interest (Jan. 31, 2019) Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/opinion/american-life-bureaucracy.html?searchResultPosition=1.

The article by Edmundson mentioned above is:

Edmundson, Mark. “Good People: The New Discipline.” Liberties Journal 3, no. 4 (2023) Available at: https://libertiesjournal.com/articles/good-people-the-new-discipline/.

The two Tocqueville quotes are from Book 4, Chapter 6 of:

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (1st ed. 1835).

Hayflick Said Lifespans Are Limited by Maximum Times Cells Can Divide (the “Hayflick Limit”)

Hayflick thought the “Hayflick limit” was a permanently binding constraint on the maximum lifespans that humans could achieve. But cancer cells provide a proof-of-concept that some cells are able to escape the limit. The challenge is to engineer cells that escape the limit without otherwise killing us. (Hayflick himself died of cancer.)

(p. A20) Leonard Hayflick, a biomedical researcher who discovered that normal cells can divide only a certain number of times — setting a limit on the human life span and frustrating would-be-immortalists everywhere — died on Aug. 1 [2024] at his home in Sea Ranch, Calif. He was 96.

His son, Joel Hayflick, said the cause was pancreatic cancer.

Like many great scientific findings, Dr. Hayflick’s came somewhat by accident. As a young scientist in the early 1960s at the Wistar Institute, a research organization at the University of Pennsylvania, he was trying to develop healthy embryonic cell lines in order to study whether viruses can cause certain types of cancer.

He and a colleague, Paul Moorhead, soon noticed that somatic — that is, nonreproductive — cells went through a phase of division, splitting between 40 and 60 times, before lapsing into what he called senescence.

. . .

This finding, which the Nobel-winning virologist Macfarlane Burnet later called the Hayflick limit, ran counter to everything scientists believed about cells and aging — especially the thesis that cells themselves are immortal, and that aging is a result of external causes, like disease, diet and solar radiation.

. . .

Dr. Hayflick made other important contributions to science. He developed a particularly vibrant cell line, WI-38, which has been used for decades to make vaccines.

. . .

The National Institutes of Health had funded the research on his WI-38 cell line but declined to fund its distribution, even as other researchers clamored for samples. Dr. Hayflick established a company to process orders, charged a minimal fee for shipping and set the proceeds aside until ownership was clarified.

But in a private report that was released to the news media, the N.I.H. accused Dr. Hayflick of theft. He sued the institute, charging invasion of privacy and reputational damage, including a forced resignation from his position at Stanford. The litigation took six years and ended in a settlement that allowed him to keep some of the money and cell samples.

During those six years, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows scientists to profit off government-funded research. The law, which would have made Dr. Hayflick’s earlier actions unquestionably legal, helped catalyze the biotech industry.

For the full obituary see:

Clay Risen. “Leonard Hayflick, 96, Explorer of Cells Who Showed Why No One Lives Forever.” The New York Times (Tuesday, August 20, 2024): A20.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated Aug. 19, 2024, and has the title “Leonard Hayflick, Who Discovered Why No One Lives Forever, Dies at 96.”)

Otherwise Innovative Retailers Exit Healthcare Due to “the Layers of Government”

(p. B3) Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, said Tuesday [April 30, 2024] that it was shutting down its health care centers, a network that only last year it said it planned to expand.

The retailer said in a blog post that its 51 health centers across five states would close.

. . .

Offering health care is more difficult than selling consumer goods like laundry detergent and car parts, said David Silverman, a retail analyst at Fitch Ratings, noting the layers of government and insurance providers involved.

“The attempts to enter these spaces and some of the failures of doing so really underscore the challenges and complexities of operating in the U.S. health care space,” Mr. Silverman said.

. . .

In 2021, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase ended their high-profile joint health care venture, which sought to explore new ways to deliver health care to their employees. In March, Walgreens said it had closed 140 of its VillageMD clinics and planned to close 20 more.

For the full story see:

Jordyn Holman. “Walmart Is Shutting Down Health Centers in 5 States.” The New York Times (Wednesday, May 1, 2024): B3.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 30, 2024, and has the title “Walmart Is Shutting Health Centers After Plan to Expand.”)

Patients Lack Key Information About Our Heavily Regulated Healthcare System

Amazon is widely criticized for its size, but it is big because so many consumers choose to buy from it. Consumers value the wide selection and the quick delivery. But I hypothesize that what consumers value most is the information. Product ratings are informative. The ratings themselves are rated. Comparisons within categories are offered. Price changes can be tracked for a given product, and compared among different products. Features can be easily compared. In healthcare the government, as with HIPAA, often mandates the protection over the provision, of information. But even when healthcare information is provided, it is often provided too slowly and too obscurely to be actionable by patients. In the example discussed in the passages quoted below, quick and accurate information is literally a matter of life and death. Entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos in a free enterprise system have the freedom and the incentive to please consumers by providing them with quick and accurate information. Bureaucrats in government or highly regulated systems, lack the freedom to violate rigid rules and are rewarded if they please their bosses by preserving the status quo.

(p. A3) After her water broke early, doctors told Fatima Goines to prepare for her newborn’s death.

Goines was 22 weeks into her pregnancy, just past the halfway mark. Doctors at Methodist Hospital in suburban Minneapolis said they couldn’t save such a premature baby and that no hospital could. They told her that once the baby girl was born, Goines could hold her until the infant died.

Goines didn’t want to give up. She checked herself out of Methodist Hospital and, on the recommendation of a fellow mom on Facebook, went to a birthing center connected to Children’s Minnesota hospital, 7 miles away from Methodist. After Goines gave birth, doctors there immediately intubated the baby to help her breathe and placed her in an incubator.

Me’Lonii is now a healthy 4-year-old, and has surpassed all the developmental milestones for her age. “She’s doing wonderfully well,” said Dr. Thomas George, who directs (p. A7) the Children’s Minnesota neonatal intensive care unit.

Medical advances over the past several decades have given hospitals the ability to save younger and younger premature newborns. Yet most hospitals don’t try—and parents often aren’t aware of what’s possible or that other hospitals, even just a few miles away, might offer their newborns a fighting chance.

Doctors are now capable of saving the lives of babies born at 22 weeks and, in rare cases, a week earlier, with improved techniques to help tiny lungs develop and protect fragile skin and organs. Hospitals with extensive experience resuscitating extremely premature babies report survival rates as high as 67% for babies born at 22 weeks.

Fragile infants

Some U.S. hospitals aren’t sufficiently equipped or capable of pulling off the new advances. Others have chosen not to offer the care, saying it is likely to fail, is expensive—typically more than $100,000 a child, and sometimes much more—and subjects tiny, fragile infants to needless pain and the risk of long-term disabilities.

Instead, they often provide comfort care: wrapping the newborn in a blanket, placing it on the mother’s chest and sometimes giving medicines to ease the child’s final moments.

The difference can be a matter of life or death for the roughly 8,000 infants born between 22 and 24 weeks gestation in the U.S. each year.

Doctors agree that babies born at 25 or 26 weeks can and should be treated as long as they don’t have other complications, while those born at 20 weeks or less are too small to save.

In between is a “gray zone,” as doctors call it, where newborns’ fate can depend on which hospital happens to be delivering.

. . .

No way to know

Rachel Sherman, a hairstylist who now lives in Florence, Ariz., wishes she had had more information.

When her water broke at 22 weeks pregnant in 2021, while she was living in Utah, the first Salt Lake City-area hospital she went to told her they couldn’t help until her baby was 24 weeks. She and her husband drove about 30 minutes to the University of Utah Hospital instead. It has a Level 3 NICU and shares a campus with a children’s hospital with a Level 4 NICU.

The staff there also told Sherman it wouldn’t save a 22-week baby and there wasn’t a neonatal unit in the U.S. that would treat an infant under 24 weeks, she recalled. But another hospital within half an hour’s drive was offering active treatment for babies at 22 weeks that year, The Wall Street Journal confirmed.

For the full story see:

Liz Essley Whyte. “A Life-or-Death Divide For Very Premature Babies.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Aug. 9, 2024): A1 & A7.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date August 7, 2024, and has the title “Doctors Can Now Save Very Premature Babies. Most Hospitals Don’t Try.” The “Fragile infants” sub-heading quoted above appears in the print, but not in the online, version.)

The paper co-authored by Christensen and mentioned above, is:

Christensen, Kaare, Gabriele Doblhammer, Roland Rau, and James W. Vaupel. “Ageing Populations: The Challenges Ahead.” Lancet 374, no. 9696 (Oct. 3, 2009): 1196-208.

The 2021 paper co-authored by Vaupel and mentioned above, is:

Vaupel, James W., Francisco Villavicencio, and Marie-Pier Bergeron-Boucher. “Demographic Perspectives on the Rise of Longevity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 9 (2021): e2019536118.

Musk Will Downsize Government and “Remove Absurd Regulations”

(p. B4) If Elon Musk becomes chief red-tape cutter in a second Trump administration, he is already giving a taste of what’s to come.

. . .

. . ., he often talks about how regulations can be like little strings that collectively tie down a giant like Gulliver, and strip us of our freedoms.

. . .

A Trump victory could give the country, according to Musk, a rare opportunity to clean house unseen since the Reagan administration’s massive deregulation effort.

“It’s been a long time since there was a serious effort to reduce the size of government and to remove absurd regulations,” Musk said during an appearance this month at the “All-In Podcast” conference.

While he skirted what exactly he would do, Musk made it clear that the EPA was the kind of agency on his mind. He pointed to a proposed fine of about $148,000 by the EPA announced this month over claims of SpaceX improperly discharging deluge water and spilling liquid oxygen at its South Texas launchpad.

Musk called it an example of “irrational regulation” and compared the company’s actions to dumping drinking water on the ground. “There was no actual harm done,” he said. “It was just water to cool the launchpad during lift off.”

. . .

Neuralink announced a regulatory win this past week. Musk’s brain-implant company said the Food and Drug Administration had awarded its experimental Blindsight microchip, which aims to restore sight, a special designation intended for medical devices aimed at treating life-threatening or irreversible debilitating conditions.

If successful, it sounds like the stuff out of TV’s “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

“Provided the visual cortex is intact, it will even enable those who have been blind from birth to see for the first time,” Musk said this past week.

It is those kinds of advancements that excite his fans and why it can be so hard to rein him in amid public support.

For the full commentary see:

Tim Higgins. “As Musk Picks Fights, Stakes Are Rising.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Sept. 23, 2024): B4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date September 21, 2024, and has the title “The Fight Elon Musk Is Ready to Pick in a Trump Administration.”)