The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, 2014: How does The Hoover Institution Fare?

On January 22, 2014, James G. McGann, director of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania, released its seventh annual rankings report (the 2014 report actually covers 2013) on think tanks in a variety of categories.  The introductory sections of the report outline its methodology, its timeline for nominations (August-September 2013), peer and expert rankings (October-November 2013), and expert panel final adjustments for errors (November-December 2013).  Altogether, more than 1950 peer institutions and experts participated in the nominations and selection process.  Qualitative and qualitative measures were used to determine rankings.

Rankings were listed for “top think tanks in the world,” “by region,” “by policy area of research,” and “by special achievement,” These four general categories subsumed 47 specific topics.

The proprietor of Thoughtful Ideas has been associated with the Hoover Institution (HI) since the 1971-72 academic year, first as a National Fellow, then as a grantee, and lastly as a Senior Fellow since July 1976.  This period is longer than the years encompassing the start of World War I till the end of World War II, an era of great social, political, and economic change.  During his 42 years with HI, your proprietor has watched HI grow from a small group of 11 Senior Fellows and an annual budget of $3 million to an assortment of more than 150 fellows, an annual budget of around $50 million, an endowment nearing $500 million, and a handful of donors to more than a thousand.

The ascension of Ronald Reagan to the presidency propelled HI to the top 1 or 2 think tanks in the United States given the role Hoover scholars played in formulating his political platform and the jobs many held during his two administrations.  Since then, HI’s star has waned and other think tanks supplanted HI in influence with subsequent administrations, both Democrat and Republican.

Many of the think tank topics do not apply to Hoover, in particular, those of foreign country rankings, new think tanks, and other special topics.

The first category is Think Tanks in the World.  The relevant table insofar as HI is concerned is combined Worldwide (U.S. and non-U.S.)  HI is not in the list of 150.

HI ranks 19 in “Top Think Tanks in the United States.”  This is down from 14 in 2012.

HI ranks 32 in the list of 80 “Top Defense and National Security Think Tanks,” down from 15.

HI ranks 21 among 65 “Foreign Policy and International Affairs,” (new issue area combing two from 2012).

HI ranks 13 among 80 “Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks,” down from 12 in 2012.

HI ranks 32 among 60 “Outstanding Policy-Oriented Policy Public Programs,” down from 28.

HI ranks 4 among 40 “Best University Affiliated Think Tanks,” down from 2 in 2012.

HI is not listed in any of the following topics (number of think tanks on each list in parentheses)

Education (50)
Energy and Resource Policy (20)
Environment (70)
Health Policy (30)
International Development (80)
International Economic Policy (50)
Science and Technology (50)
Social Policy (50)
Transparency and Good Governance (30)
Best Advocacy (75)
Best Managed (60)
Best New Ideas or Paradigm (40)
Best Policy Study/Report Produced (30)
Best Conference (60)
Best Network (60)
Best Transdisciplinary Research Program (60)
Best Use of Social Networks (60)
Best External Relations/Public Engagement Program (50)
Best Use of the Internet (40)
Best Use of Media, Print or Electronic  (35)
Most Innovative Policy Ideas/Proposals (30)
Most Significant Impact on Policy (70)

Subsequent posts will try to clarify the reasons for HI’s decline in five issue areas and non-appearance in all remaining topics.  Background information can be read in previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.

Legalized Marijuana in Colorado--Bending the Health Care Cost Curve

It is alleged that marijuana reduces pain.  If correct, will less money be spent on both prescription and over-the-counter pain relief medicine?

Centers for the Study of Inequality and Poverty Reduction

“Centers for the Study of Inequality and Poverty Reduction” (CSIPRs) are rapidly proliferating throughout America’s top private and public universities.

Most scholars in these centers point to the stagnation of median incomes while the share of income received by the top quintile, decile, 5%, 1%, 0.1%, and especially for the top 0.01%, has been steadily rising during the past 30 years.

An increasing number of prominent economists blame rising inequality for slow growth and lack of job creation in the advanced industrial economies.  Political scientists warn that rising inequality is increasing the likelihood of conflict within and between countries and regions.

Inequality can be measured in units of individuals, households, within and between communities, between urban/rural areas, between nations, and among global regions.  A frequently propounded solution is the transfer of wealth and income from “haves” to “lesser haves” and “have nots.”  Within communities and nations, this often takes the form of more progressive income taxes, higher wealth taxes, and higher taxes on capital income.  Foreign aid and other transfers from rich to poor countries are standard proposals to redress inequality among nations.

The consensus among professors in CSIPRs is that one solution lies in greater access to quality education.  A small number of elite universities enjoy large endowments and annual gifts which enable them to recruit the best (highly-paid) professors and students.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of community colleges, four-year colleges and universities, and massive state-financed universities are strapped for money.  State support is declining and many students cannot afford tuition increases.

To the best of my knowledge, no CSIPR in an elite institution has issued a policy paper recommending that some of its university’s endowment and annual gifts, and some of its faculty’s salaries and benefits, be transferred to less wealthy colleges that face the daunting task of educating the majority of America’s future work force.

CSIPRs recommend redistribution of income and wealth for all except for the centers and professors in them.

It is what it is.  Go figure.

Who Cares About the National Debt?

On January 31, 2009, a few days after President Obama moved into The White House, the U.S. National Debt amounted to $10.88 trillion.  Of this, marketable debt held by members of the public amounted to $5.75 trillion, non-marketable debt (largely held by the Social Security Trust Fund) was $4.88 trillion, together summing to $10.63 trillion.

On November 30, 2013, the comparable numbers were $11.79 trillion, $5.43 trillion, and $17.21 trillion, an increase of over $1 trillion a year in both marketable and total national debt.

President Obama and most Democrats believe that annual budget deficits since the financial crash of September 2008 have, if anything, been too small.  They would have preferred larger deficits than actually transpired to stimulate the economy.

Most Republicans prefer smaller deficits, balanced budgets, and ultimately paying down the national debt or at least substantially reducing it.

It’s easy to explain this difference.  It depends on who might have to pay the debt.

Voting by Race and Ethnicity

In the 2012 presidential election, 95% of African-Americans, 72% of non-White Hispanics, and 67% of single women (inclusive of single mothers) voted for President Obama.  In contrast, a majority of men and White married women voted for Republican candidate Romney.  (According to the 2010 Census, Whites were 72%, Hispanics 16%, and Blacks 13.3% of the population.)

How might the U.S. government go about paying increasing interest and paying down  principal on the rapidly rising national debt?  One recourse is a wealth tax, either a one-off measure or an annual levy.  Another option is higher tax rates on upper-income households.

Wealth by Race and Ethnicity

There is a large wealth gap between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.  In 2009, the median net worth of White households was $113,140; of Hispanics, $6,325; and of Blacks, $5,677.  The ratio of White-to-Black wealth was 19:1, and White-to-Hispanic 15:1.  A wealth tax would overwhelmingly be borne by Whites.  Only a small fraction of Blacks and Hispanics possess sufficient wealth to be subject to a wealth tax.

Income by Race and Ethnicity

There is also a large income gap between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.  White median income in 2009 was $62,545; of Blacks, $38,409; and of Hispanics, $39,730.  For family income exceeding $100,000, Whites were 27.0% of all White families; Blacks, 12.1% of all Black families, and Hispanics 12.4% of all Hispanic families.  For family incomes below $35,000, Blacks made up 55.3% of all Black families, Hispanics 46% of all Hispanic families, and Whites 33.8% of all White families.  Low-income Blacks and Hispanics are a much larger fraction of their respective communities than are low-income Whites.  An income-tax surcharge or increase in tax rates would largely affect White taxpayers.

Racial and ethnic differences overlap education levels, full-time work status, and  marital status.  Whites are better educated, disproportionately work full-time, and are more likely to be married, all of which are strongly correlated with wealth and income.  (Asian-Americans are omitted from these comparisons because they constitute a much smaller fraction of the U.S. population, and because they are divided into many nationalities–Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and 12 smaller nationalities of East- and Southeast Asians–which vary in income and wealth (e.g., Chinese-Americans vs. Laotian-Americans).

To summarize, Republican voters will largely pay any wealth and/or additional income taxes that are levied to pay interest and principal on the national debt.  Democrat voters will pay little.  It should come as no surprise, then, that President Obama and most Democrats in Congress care little about large deficits and the expanding national debt as their constituents will bear little of the additional tax burden.

Sources: Income data from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, Tables 690, 696; Wealth data from U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation: August 2010.

Describing HealthCare.gov in One Word

VASA

Return With Us To Those Thrilling Policy Days of Yesteryear

In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Hoover Institution was a hotbed of stimulating conversation on the important domestic and foreign policy ideas of the day.  Every afternoon at 3:30 a crowd of distinguished intellectuals would gather for coffee in the Polich Room of the Lou Henry Hoover Building.  Sometimes 15-20 people would squeeze themselves around one rectangular table to join the discussion.

On any given afternoon, resident Hoover fellows could engage with Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Aaron Director, Edward Teller, Bertram Wolfe, Sidney Hook, Robert Conquest, Allan Meltzer, James Buchanan, Gary Becker, and other prominent thinkers.  The Economist proclaimed that the Hoover Institution [of that era] was unmatched for its sheer intellectual firepower.

The group also met in a private dining room at the Stanford Faculty Club in what came to be known as the weekly “Friday Lunch Bunch.”  Often one of the members would present his latest idea for discussion.

It’s no accident that the flat tax, deregulation, anti-ballistic missile defense, welfare reform, the all-volunteer army, and other public policy ideas were nurtured in this environment.

The young Senior Fellows in that room of yesteryear are now the Hoover Institution elders in their seventies, eighties, and nineties, mostly retired.  Friedman, Stigler, Director, Buchanan, Teller, Wolfe, and Hook are gone, with others approaching the end of their lives.

In the past quarter-century, the Hoover Institution has grown dramatically in facilities, expenditures, research fellows, projects, publications, and public relations, but few new bold ideas have emerged from its fellows.  This is Parkinson’s Law applied to think tanks.

Perhaps the times have changed and the Hoover Institution has changed with it.  The Hoover Institution is no longer at the cutting edge of conservative policy reform.  In that sense it has become mainstream, one among many think tanks offering modest changes in current programs or even defending old Bush-era policy decisions.  The Hoover Institution was part of the era of Ronald Reagan.  Fifteen years ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke several times at Hoover gatherings of donors, always with the same message.  “The era of Ronald Reagan is over.  Get over it.  Find another paradigm.”    “Those were the days my friend, we thought they’d never end....”

Earth, Air, Fire, Water: The Four States of Matter in Modern Robes

“Many philosophies and world views have a set of classical elements believed to reflect the simplest essential parts and principles of which anything consists or upon which the constitution and fundamental powers of anything are based. Most frequently, classical elements, dating from pre-Socratic Greece, refer to ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas, and fire is equivalent to plasma.”  (From Wikipedia)

Search the websites of most colleges and universities in the United States and you will discover five fundamental principles that suffuse academic life, and which permeate every aspect of American culture.

The ordering of the five may change over time, but the list is universal, as if it was inscribed on a third stone tablet numbering the 11th through 15th commandments.

1.   Equality.  This requires poverty reduction, growth with equity, redistribution of income, and ever-increasing taxes on the rich and wealthy.

2.  Sustainability.  This requires stopping global warming that is causing climate change.  Man-made greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced and should be taxed to save the planet.    Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass, must replace fossil fuels, regardless of cost.

3.  Diversity.  No matter how many words have been written demonstrating that statistical disparities do not imply discrimination (e.g., Thomas Sowell’s 17 books and countless articles), diversity must be expanded until underrepresented groups achieve or exceed proportional parity in every walk of life.

4.  Democracy.  The attempt to impose Western-style democracy, especially in the Middle East, has cost several trillion  dollars and more than a million lives and casualties.  Nevertheless, universities press ahead promoting democracy around the globe.

5.  Sensitivity.  Neither students nor scholars dare utter words that are considered insensitive to offended groups.  Criticism of Barack Obama’s policies is met with charges of racism.  Defense of traditional families and Christianity is called sexist and homophobic.  If you can’t say it, it’s only a matter of time till you dare not think it.  Linda: You’re Absolutely fantastic.

Student tour guides at universities used to tell prospective students that “At our university we teach you how to think, not what to think.”  Now they tell them “Welcome to your Brave New World.”