Brookings President Steps Down Amid Rocky Time at Think Tank

It is the year of presidential transitions.  First it was Donald Trump.  Now it is Strobe Talbott, the leader of the liberal Brookings Institution, who just announced his resignation after 15 years at the think tank's helm.

The announcement comes at a very rocky time for the think tank, which took a huge beating in the past few years for various pay-to-play schemes that many say weakened its credibility and stature.

While maintaining its ranking as the world's No. 1 think tank in the just-released University of Pennsylvania think tank rankings, it was revealed that the professor who conducts the study had his new book published by Brookings - a bewildering move that further deflated the credibility of the think tank's standing.

Nevertheless, Brookings is still a prolific fundraiser, having recently raised more than $650 million in its Brookings 2.0 campaign.  And according to the most recent tax records, Brookings still has assets of close to half a billion dollars.

Mr. Talbott, who was floated as a possible Secretary of State in a Clinton White House, will step down in October.  In the meantime, a search committee, reporting to the Board of Trustees, has been formed to find a successor.  Brookings says that it will conduct a "global" search.

Talbott was paid a base salary of $606,140 in 2014, so Think Tank Watch images that many people will be applying for the job (even though traditional think tanks may be severely weakened in the new Trump era).

Stay tuned for much more, including reactions and more details of the search for a new president...

Brookings: Sell the US Postal Service

Here is more from the Washington Post:

...With three Congresses in a row failing to pass legislation to help stabilize its finances, some lawmakers and policy experts have reached the consensus that it’s time for the government to sell the post office.  

This group was limited for a few years to conservatives and Republicans in Congress. But now a Democrat at the centrist Brookings Institution, Washington’s premier academic think tank, is joining the privatization side, arguing in a new paper that Congress’s inaction requires that something be done. Elaine Kamarck says that letting politicians continue to protect the Postal Service from competition is no longer viable.  

“If the USPS were a purely private entity, the changing shape of the marketplace wouldn’t necessarily pose an existential threat,” Kamarck wrote in an essay made public last week, “Delaying the inevitable: Political stalemate and the U.S. Postal Service.”

Elaine Kamarck's paper can be found here.   Ms. Kamarck is a Senior Fellow in the Governance Studies program at Brookings and the Director of the Center for Effective Public Management.  The article notes that she was the "creator and manager" of the Clinton Administration's reinventing government initiative in the 1990s.

Here is a response to the article from the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers.

Politico Fills in Juicy Tidbits in Warren-Brookings War

A new Politico story has some fresh details that haven't yet been mentioned in previous reporting (here and here) on the Brookings Institution attack by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  Here is more:

All it took was an hour of damaging Twitter comments and press attention, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren had claimed another prize.

News broke at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday that the liberal Massachusetts firebrand was blasting Brookings Institution scholar Robert Litan because a mutual-fund company paid for his research criticizing an Obama administration proposal to regulate the industry. By 9:30 a.m., Litan — an economist and former adviser to President Bill Clinton — was out.

That,despite indications from Brookings’ senior management just the night before that it would all blow over.

“I had no indication until the end that I would be asked to leave,” Litan told POLITICO on Wednesday. “I’d be reprimanded.”

Litan’s departure is already prompting backlash among some economists and rival think tankers, who say Warren’s crusade and Brookings’ response could have a chilling effect on research.

“This is McCarthyism of the left," said Hal Singer, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and co-author of the research Warren criticized. “What Warren is doing is suppressing scholars [who] speak independently through her threats.”

Here is a Hill newspaper story entitled "Ousted Brookings Economist Lashes Back at Warren."

The only conclusion Think Tank Watch has from the this weeks events is that Brookings will not be inviting Elizabeth Warren over for any events anytime soon...


Update: The Washington Examiner interviewed Dr. Litan, who was quoted as saying that he thought he had resolved months ago any concerns that Brookings had over an industry-funded study he did.

Dr. Litan said he was contacted this week by a "high-ranking individual" at Brookings (who he declined to name) who told him that there was "a lot of distress over the whole situation."

The article also quotes Kevin Hassett, Litan's think tank friend over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who said that Brookings' reaction was unfortunate.  He said that Litan was part of a "dwindling minority of serious scholars at Brookings unafraid to stand by conclusions that irritated liberals."

Added Hassett: "This makes Brookings look like the Elizabeth Warren Rapid Response Team.  It's chilling to see him go."

Update2: Politico has a new quote from Public Citizen's Bart Naylor: "The shill game where Wall Street Pays for ersatz studies under the banner of prestigious universities and think tanks must end."

Also, Slate notes that financial services firms have set up their own think tanks to produce studies of interest.

And as Wall Street Journal is reporting, several Democratic economists have come to the defense of Dr. Litan, including Bowman Cutter of the Roosevelt Institute.

Here is National Review's take on the whole Warren-Brookings incident.

Update3: Here is a piece by L. Gordon Crovitz in WSJ entitled "In the Tank for Elizabeth Warren," with the subheading "Brookings has been mugged by the reality of progressive animus for dissenting views."

Here is a piece by Jason Stahl (in Salon) entitled "Elizabeth Warren's Giant Leap to the Left: Why Her War With a Corporate-Friendly Think Tank Matters."

Some say it was unfortunate that Brookings didn't require Mr. Litan's resignation last summer.  (In response to a Strobe Talbott piece in WSJ, saying that Warren had nothing to do with Litan's exit.)

Here is the New York times piece "Is Money Corrupting Research?" which mentions that Warren-Brookings incident.

And here is the Daily Caller on "Why Warren's Witch-Hunt Won't Work."

Sen. Warren Ejects Longtime Scholar from Brookings

It was reported earlier today that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was attacking the Brookings Institution for an industry-funded study that one of its scholars co-authored.

Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that the scholar, Robert Litan, has "abruptly cut ties" with Brookings, a think tank he has been affiliated with for around 40 years.   Here is what Litan said:

“I think the Warren letter has created discomfort at Brookings,” said Robert Litan in a telephone interview with the Globe. “I don’t want to make people there feel any more uncomfortable than needed.”

And here is what a Brookings spokesman had to say about the whole incident:

David Nassar, a Brookings spokesman, said that Litan violated a Brookings policy by touting his Brookings affiliation when he gave testimony on his study before Congress. He said that the study “was not connected with Brookings in any way.”

The Hill newspaper notes that Litan has been "forced out" of the think tank, saying he is formally submitting his resignation Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Warren's letter to Brookings, which is addressed to its President, Strobe Talbott, can be found here.  A press release of that letter can be found here.

Was Brookings scholar Jane Dokko calling out Dr. Litan's paper before today's blow-up?

As seen from another of today's Think Tank Watch stories, Brookings scholars seem to like to complain about other Brookings scholars.

Update: A Washington Post story says that Brookings was seeking a resignation from Dr. Litan, and in return, Dr. Litan complied.  Here is our favorite line from that story:

Her [Warren's] complaint pointed to a relatively new form of influence peddling in the nation's capital, with industry groups and even foreign governments paying think tanks and scholars for research papers that support lobbying goals.

The article also raises an interesting point:

Brookings's action Tuesday could have implications for industry lobbyists who advise clients to fund think tank research to influence policymakers.

Scholars have opened private consultancies, attracting fees from corporate sponsors at least in part because their studies could enjoy the Brookings imprimatur.

Litan, for instance, works with a firm called Economists Incorporated, where his bio describes him as a "non-resident senior fellow" at Brookings.

Here is even more from yet another Washington Post piece on the Warren-Brookings war.  Our favorite lines:

[This incident] could have a chilling effect on scholars who have been perfectly fine letting companies that finance their research review it before publication.

 Brookings is as much a pillar of the Democratic establishment as any institution in Washington.  That President Strobe Talbott moved so quickly to oust Litan underscores just how terrified DC elites from both parties are right now about the rise of pitchfork populism.

Here is a Vox piece entitled "Elizabeth Warren Exposed a Shocking Instance of How Money Corrupts DC Think Tanks."

Think Tank Watch is aware of numerous think tank scholars at a wide variety of think tanks who run their own consulting firms, blurring the line between true scholarly work and work simply for the benefit of a corporate patron.

Sen. Warren Questions Independence of Brookings Institution

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) does not seem to be too happy with the Brookings Institution this week.  Here is more from the Washington Post:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren today takes her ongoing crusade against the outsized influence of the financial services industry to one of Washington's most respected think tanks.  The Massachusetts Democrat is questioning the independence of the Brookings Institution and one of its longtime scholars over a study that criticizes a proposed regulation aimed at reining in conflicts of interest among retirement advisors.

Post reporter Tom Hamburger obtained letters that Warren sent this week to Brookings and the Labor Department.  The Massachusetts Democrat blasts a report by non-resident scholar, Robert Litan, which predicted high costs for a measure backed strongly by progressives, consumer groups and President Obama.

Citing the $85,000 combined fee that Litan and a co-author received from the leading investment firm, Warren calls their report "highly compensated and editorially compromised work on behalf of an industry player seeking a specific conclusion."

Litan, who held senior positions in Bill Clinton's administration, confirmed that the outline for his study was reviewed by its sole sponsor, The Capital Group, which offered some comments.  The investment firm has more than $1.4 trillion under management in its American Funds and other products.  The company, like others handling retirement investment assets, has made opposition to Labor's rule one of its top priorities.

The scholar forcefully rejects Warren's criticism, arguing that he disclosed the funding arrangement repeatedly, including in July testimony before a congressional committee on which Warren sits.  He stressed that the funding did not influence hid study or its conclusions.

But Litan acknowledges one mistake: His testimony overlooked a relatively new Brookings rule prohibiting non-resident scholars - who are generally not paid by the institution - from associating their congressional testimony with the think tank.

Sen. Warren is now demanding more information from Brookings, including information about the think tank's rules for scholarship and congressional testimony.

This news comes as Brookings has faced increased questions about donor impact on its research.

Here is additional reporting on the Brookings-Warren sparring from the Boston Globe.  It notes that a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Litan's research on the Brookings website has a disclaimer about the funding by Capital Group.

It Sen. Warren getting revenge on Brookings for slamming her student loan proposal in 2013?

Think Tank Watch should note that this is not the first time that Sen. Warren has lashed out at think tanks.  Back in 2013, she sent a letter to the US's six largest banks asking them to disclose their donations to think tanks, saying that not doing so threatens the credibility and research of those policy groups.

We should also note that Sen. Warren seems to be taking a liking to none another than the libertarian think tank Cato Institute these days.  She has been quoting Cato and went to the think tank this month to participate in a panel discussion.  Is she angling for a post-Senate job in think tank land?

Stay tuned for more on the Warren-Brookings fight...

Brookings Scholar Blasts Brookings Scholar

Think tank colleagues are usually a cordial and harmonious bunch.  They typically praise each others work (at least in public) or at least don't bash it.

But that was not the case this week when prolific think tanker Justin Wolfers, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, lashed out at Michael O'Hanlon, a well-known security and defense scholar at Brookings, for writing about a subject he admittedly is not an expert in: vaccines and autism.

Following are the Tweets that Wolfers wrote:

Dear @Brookings Time for quality control: Why publish a foreign policy scholar's musings on the autism-vaccine link? http://t.co/4tAlD2Rrvh

— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) September 29, 2015

Serious scholarship built @Brookings' reputation. A foreign policy guy rambling about vaccines destroys it. Why do this? cc @strobetalbott

— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) September 29, 2015

Here's a hint. Anytime you feel the need to offer the qualifier "I am not an expert," you should probably not offer your "expertise."

— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) September 29, 2015

Here is the paper in question that O'Hanlon wrote on autism/vaccines.  In it, he notes that he is the parent of a child on the autism spectrum, but also says he is not a scientist in the field of biology or medicine.

So, should a think tank scholar to able to publish pieces on subjects that they are not experts in?

It seems that Wolfers does not worry an ounce about upsetting Brookings or his colleagues, probably because he is affiliated with numerous other think tanks - including five of the top 10 economic think tanks.

But, just for a littler entertainment, Think Tank Watch would love to see Wolfers and O'Hanlon settle the score at the Brookings Fight Club.

Congressional Testimony by Think Tanker Forces Funding Disclosures

Here is what the conservative Free Beacon is reporting about the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution:

The Brookings Institution, one of the country’s top left-leaning think tanks, has for the first time admitted to Congress that it receives millions of dollars every year from foreign governments, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, according to official disclosure forms obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The disclosure of these figures comes as a result of a recently implemented federal law mandating that those who testify before Congress reveal any potential conflicts created as a result of funding by foreign entities.

The disclosure form, which is presented to Congress before an individual testifies, reveals that Brookings received nearly $15 million from the Embassy of Qatar between 2013 and 2015. Brookings also maintains a facility in the Qatari capital of Doha, where Hamas is known to operate freely.

The think tank received another $1,920,000 from the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates between those same years.

These disclosures came as a result of a Sept. 17 congressional hearing at which Suzanne Maloney, a Brookings senior fellow, offered testimony on Iran’s relationship with the terrorist group Hezbollah.

The forms further reveal that, in addition to the millions in foreign donations, Brookings has received federal grants.

Both the foreign donations and federal grants “were for independent research and analysis related to an number of subject matters,” according to Maloney. A “portion” of these funds may have been “related to the hearing,” which discussed the ways in which Hezbollah stands to profit from Iran in the wake of the recent nuclear deal.

When questioned about the foreign donations by the New York Times last year, Martin Indyk, a Brookings scholar who has also worked with the Obama administration, defended the practice and maintained that it does not bias his views.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch post on the new congressional rules on think tank funding disclosure.  Think Tank Watch has predicted that fewer think tankers will be testifying before Congress so they do not have to disclose the sources of their funds.

In fiscal year 2014, Brookings said it received 58% of its funding from grants, 37% from "contributions and endowments," and 5% from publications and "miscellaneous."

Out of the grants that Brookings receives, 28% are from foundations, 9% from foreign governments, 7% from corporations, 6% from individuals, 6% from "other," and 2% from the US government.

Here is a historical look from the Washington Post about the Brookings' funding.  And here is a Washington Post piece on how donors may have an impact on the research agenda at the world's #1 think tank.

Think Tank Watch should point out that it is already common knowledge that Brookings was receiving millions of dollars from these foreign governments and others.

Also, as we previously noted, investigative reporter Brooke Williams, who helped write the influential New York Times piece last year titled "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks," created a website earlier this year where one can search and explore foreign government contributions to think tanks.  That site (thinktankdonors.org) can be found here.

Carly Fiorina's Quiet Adventures in Think Tank Land

Carly Fiorina, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate who got rave reviews at yesterday's presidential debate, has had an under-the-radar relationship with a handful of think tanks.

For example, the former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard has been a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Among other things, she was tapped to be a member of CSIS's Executive Council on Development.  Earlier this year she gave a speech at CSIS for the "Smart Women, Smart Power" initiative.  In 2013 she gave a speech at the think tank at a forum on innovation for government effectiveness.

Of course, CSIS is not the only think tank that Carly Fiorina has a connection to.  Earlier this year, Fiorina gave a keynote address at the annual dinner of the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Ms. Fiorina was also the Chair of the Board of Directors of Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a Washington, DC-based think tank focusing on the economics of innovation and technological change.

Following are a few things that other think tanks have put said about Fiorina:

• Here is what the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has put together on the foreign policy positions of Carly Fiorina.

• Marc Thiessen of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) writes how Carly Fiorina is on the rise.

• The Heritage Foundation said earlier this year that no other potential 2016 GOP candidate was tougher on Hillary Clinton than Carly Fiorina at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

• Brookings Institution scholar John Hudak has said that Fiorina probably has more potential as a vice presidential candidate, and could possibly be tapped as Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Think Tank Watch prediction: After yesterday's performance, don't be surprised if Fiorina starts making her way around the think tank circuit more regularly.

Glenn Greenwald Has Some Harsh Words for Brookings

In one of his recent pieces, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who became widely known for his reporting on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden, attacked Hillary Clinton and her choice of venue (the Brookings Institution) for her recent speech on Iran.  Here is more:

Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. By itself, the choice of the venue was revealing.

Brookings served as Ground Zero for centrist think tank advocacy of the Iraq War, which Clinton (along with potential rival Joe Biden) notoriously and vehemently advocated. Brookings’ two leading “scholar”-stars — Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — spent all of 2002 and 2003 insisting that invading Iraq was wise and just, and spent the years after that assuring Americans that the “victorious” war and subsequent occupation were going really well... 

Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign...

So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. As she put it today at the start: “There are a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings.”

In the piece, Greenwald links to a Think Tank Watch story about the Saban Center at Brookings.  Here is a 2007 from Mother Jones entitled "Glenn Greenwald Will Not Be Hired by Brookings Anytime Soon."

This is not the first time that Mr. Greenwald has had harsh words for Brookings.  Awhile back he said that the think tank "demands servile journalism."  More generally, as Think Tank Watch recently noted, he said that some of the planet's worst people are housed at think tanks (without singling out any one think tank).

That leaves us wondering if Glenn Greenwald likes any think tanks.

In related think tank/Iran news, a variety of other Iran-related speeches/talks were given at think tanks, including former Vice President Dick Cheney's talk at the American Enterprise Institute (which faced several protest incidents), and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP).

Parody Paper Creates New Brookings Study on the US Dollar

Satirical newspaper The Onion has published has a new article citing a made-up Brookings Institution study showing it is "now easier than ever for American dollars to rise into the upper class."  Here is an excerpt:

Citing “nearly unlimited” opportunities for the nation’s currency, an encouraging study released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution found that it has never been easier for U.S. dollars to enter the richest segment of American society.

The study, which followed the legal tender over a 40-year period, confirmed that trillions of dollars have been able to move from the lower and middle classes into the upper class, indicating a significant rise in the upward mobility of American money.

“In comparison to earlier generations, today’s U.S. dollars are ascending the economic ladder much faster, and in far greater numbers,” said economist and lead researcher Hannah Rodrigues, emphasizing that it is much easier for money to escape the ranks of the poor now than it was just 10 years ago. “We have never seen this much money moving into the highest income brackets, and the trend is only getting stronger.”

This is not the first time that The Onion has used Brookings in its stories.  For example, last year, it had a story quoting a fake 85-page Brookings study saying that there is no need to produce any new chairs in the United States.  The Onion also ran a story in 2014 quoting another fake Brookings study saying that 47% of Americans should think before talking.  [We at Think Tank Watch thought this was one of the better think tank studies of the year, even if fake.]

One of Think Tank Watch's favorite Onion stories comes from 2013, when they cite a fake 10-year Brookings study saying that Americans, on average, have five to seven good shirts and eight or more "not-good" shirts.  We also like the 2011 Onion story citing a fake Brookings study saying that fax machine technology is pretty impressive.

Brookings is not the only think tank that The Onion writes about.  Last month, it wrote a fake story about how officials at the Heritage Foundation lowered retired Republican senator Saxby Chambliss into a giant vat of conservative policy experts.

Update: Here is an Onion story from 1996 about a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) think tank.

Bernanke Slams Hamilton Demotion on $10 Bill in Brookings Post

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Distinguished Fellow in Residence at the Brookings Institution, slammed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's decision to remove Alexander Hamilton from the ten dollar bill.

We at Think Tank Watch wonder if Bernanke's love of Hamilton has anything to do with the fact that his think tank houses The Hamilton Project, an economic policy initiative launched in 2006 that produces policy proposals on how to create a growing economy that benefits more Americans.

The Project is indeed named after Alexander Hamilton, who the think tank says "laid the foundation for the modern American economy."

The Hamilton Project is full of big-name economists, although Bernanke is not directly affiliated with it.

In related Hamilton Project news, Jane Dokko, who recently became Policy Director at Hamilton Project after a stint at the Council on Economic Advisers, just got married to Jonathan Rose, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.