      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is Corporate Welfare Worth It? main page    Transcript for: Is Corporate Welfare Worth It?Think Tank Transcripts:Corporate Welfare ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' has been madepossible by Amgen, a recipient of the Presidential National Medal ofTechnology. Amgen, bringing better, healthier lives to peopleworldwide through biotechnology. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. The new Congress istrying to cut the budget, and some observers are saying that if thebudget cutters are really serious, they must cut welfare -- corporatewelfare. They say it's time to take business off the dole. Others saythe government needs to invest in our economy today more than ever. Joining us to sort through the conflict and the consensus are:Stephen Moore, director of fiscal studies at the Cato Institute andco-author of the recent study, 'Ending Corporate Welfare As We KnowIt'; Lawrence Chimerine, chief economist at the Economic StrategyInstitute and former manager of economic forecasting at IBM; RobertShapiro, vice president and director of economic studies at theProgressive Policy Institute; and Kenneth Flamm, recently of theDepartment of Defense and now a senior fellow at the BrookingsInstitution. The topic before this house: Is corporate welfare worth it? Thisweek on 'Think Tank.' Calvin Coolidge said, 'The business of America is business,' butis it the business of government as well? According to a recent CatoInstitute report, the U.S. government subsidizes private businessesto the tune of $85 billion a year. For example, the Clinton administration requested $330 million fora program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, tohelp subsidize the auto industry's effort to build cleaner cars. Butlast year, the poor auto industry reaped record profits of $13.9billion. The federal government spent $140 million last year building roadsin national forests. Critics say those roads subsidize private timbercompanies. The government pays millions of dollars in subsidies tocorporate farms to grow food even though there is little demand forit. Moreover, many fear that once the government gets involved inhelping an industry, it becomes impossible to stop. Today thegovernment gives utilities $2 billion in subsidies. These programswere started during the Great Depression to help poor and ruralAmericans get electricity. But today, even Las Vegas casinos receiveartificially cheap electricity, thanks to the same old programs.However, advocates of subsidies say the money often goes to long-termresearch and investments that individual companies or industriesdon't consider in their short-term interest. Government, they say,can and must take the long-term view. Sematech, a chip-manufacturing consortium, is often cited as apublic-private partnership that worked. With hefty governmentfunding, Sematech helped a handful of chip-makers develop a newgeneration of semiconductors. First question to you, Stephen Moore. Is there anything new aboutthis idea of corporate welfare? I mean, doesn't it go back to 1789and the foundation of this republic? We had maritime subsidies. MR. MOORE: Well, what's new, Ben, is that 50 or a hundred yearsago, there was no Department of Commerce, there was no Department ofAgriculture, there was no Department of Energy. So I think theproblem is much worse today than it's ever been. As you mentioned atthe start of the show, we estimate that somewhere between 75 and 85billion dollars a year just on the spending side is spent on aid andsubsidies to business. So I think it's one of the last great bouldersof the budget that if this Congress is serious about balancing thebudget, it has to address the problem of corporate welfare. MR. WATTENBERG: Rob Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, the budget and the tax code are larded withsubsidies for influential industries that have had the ability,through campaign contributions and lobbying, to claim a little pieceof the budget or a little piece of the tax code for their own. We ought to be able to make a distinction, however, betweengovernment helping business in general, that is, creating a soundbusiness climate, investing in public goods -- the nation's economicinfrastructure, real basic research, education and training -- andchanneling resources from one industry to another in order to favorthose who have the most influence. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, we have heard now from a libertarian and anew Democrat. Ken Flamm, what do you say, and how would you describeyourself politically? MR. FLAMM: A central -- a centrist, typical Brookings, sort ofneither the left hand nor the right hand, but somewhere down themiddle. MR. WATTENBERG: You recently worked in the Clinton administration. MR. FLAMM: Absolutely. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. MR. FLAMM: I think there's a number of things that are reallyquite different than they were back in 1789. And one of the mostimportant differences is that today we live in a fundamentallydifferent kind of economy. The most rapidly growing sectors of theeconomy are high technology sectors based on investment in researchand develop in science and technology. That was not the case back in1789. This whole edifice of high-tech industries -- computers,semiconductors, jet engines, aircraft -- builds off of an edifice ofpublic investment in science and technology that really didn't existbefore World War II. If you look at all of these sectors, government has been heavilyinvolved. Now, this is done in the name of national security, butthere is no doubt that the thriving, prosperous, high-tech economicbase we see today builds off a steady diet of funding by thegovernment for research development, where we expect to see a socialreturn that's a lot different than the private return. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Lawrence Chimerine, Larry Chimerine of theEconomic Strategy Institute, formerly of IBM, can we assume you arespeaking from a business perspective? MR. CHIMERINE: I am speaking from a middle-of-the-roadperspective, Ben, I hope. MR. WATTENBERG: Uh-oh. Another one of those. Okay. MR. FLAMM: Everybody wants to be a centrist. MR. WATTENBERG: Nobody here but us centrists, right. MR. CHIMERINE: That's right. There are several things new. Firstof all, I think, in all fairness to Rob and Steve, there has been aproliferation of these programs in recent years. There is more focuson reducing or eliminating the budget deficit, to it's heightenedinterest in some of these welfare or subsidy programs. But I thinkit's very important to take into account the things that Ken talkedabout. First of all, it's a much more competitive global environment. Allof the advantages, or many of the advantages that we had in previousyears in technology have disappeared. Foreign companies, foreigngovernments have caught up with us. Secondly, most of our major global competitors are mixed economieswhere government plays an active role in supporting R&D,supporting new technology, supporting specific industries. I think itwould be foolish for us to ignore that and take a very, veryideological approach. MR. WATTENBERG: So what you are saying, in effect, is that if aforeign government is foolish enough to subsidy an industry, then weshould let them set our economic policy and we should subsidy anindustry? MR. CHIMERINE: You're assuming it's foolish. In many of thesecountries, there is ample evidence to suggest that many of theirprograms have helped the development of key industries in thosecountries, helped them compete more effectively, in many casesdirectly against U.S. industry. We've lost share in many of theseindustries to foreign countries. And I think it would be foolish forus to say, well, you know, we should take the high road, if everybodyelse is taking the low road. MR. WATTENBERG: All right, let's hear from some high-roaders here. MR. SHAPIRO: We ought to be able to distinguish between Ken andLarry's positions here. I certainly think that government plays afundamental role in supporting basic scientific research. This is anarea of natural market failure. MR. FLAMM: It's not just basic research. MR. SHAPIRO: The development, the fundamental development ofcomputer technology, et cetera, did have a national security basis. MR. WATTENBERG: Some of the biological work at the NationalInstitutes of Health -- MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, yes. MR. FLAMM: It's not just basic research, though, Rob. MR. SHAPIRO: That's entirely different from subsidized -- fromsaying that pharmaceutical firms with plants in Puerto Rico won't payany taxes because they're in Puerto Rico or that advertisers shouldbe able to expense all of their advertising when part of it isclearly a capital investment or that we should be subsidizing theproduction of wheat and corn. These are the major subsidy programs inthe government. MR. CHIMERINE: This is a good point, and one of the problems inputting all of these programs together and calling them corporatewelfare is they all tend to get branded with the same brush, orpainted with the same brush. I agree strongly with your view. Thereare some programs that cannot be justified. There are others -- MR. WATTENBERG: Name five. MR. CHIMERINE: Oh -- MR. FLAMM: Agricultural subsidies -- MR. CHIMERINE: -- the ones Rob just mentioned. But those in thetechnology area, export promotion programs, others of that type,where they recognize the sort of global, you know, the increasedcompetitiveness issue, and secondly, where the record shows they payoff, they're very small items in the budget, those need to be treateddifferently. MR. SHAPIRO: If we could -- (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it. We have one high-roader here we haven'teven heard from. MR. MOORE: I'm the non-centrist here, I guess. MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, Steve Moore -- MR. MOORE: I want to just contrast -- MR. WATTENBERG: -- from the Cato Institute, which is a libertarianinstitute. MR. MOORE: I want to contrast the American economy with some ofthe European economies that you were talking about. It is true thatif you pour money into an industry, as Japan and European countrieshave done, you can subsidy that industry and it may even out-competeAmerican industries. Where we out-compete European countries is in --is the fact that we have the most flourishing small business sectorin the world. This is the reason that we've created 20 million newjobs in the last 15 years, whereas Europe has created virtually nonew jobs. They do subsidy industries, like their airline industries,and so forth, but at the expense of their small business sector. The problem with this kind of approach, in my opinion, is that ittries to pick winners and losers of industries, but it does it at theexpense of where the real jobs come from, and that is small business. MR. SHAPIRO: If we could agree to eliminate all industry subsidyprograms apart from these high technology development programs, wewould be 90 percent of the way. I would be delighted if we could cometo -- if the government could come to that consensus. And then we canexamine the high tech programs one by one. MR. WATTENBERG: Ken, does that involve 90 percent of the problem,the non-high-tech? MR. FLAMM: I'm not sure it does. The problem is that you look atSteve's study, you look at some of the things Rob is talking about,and what they've done is they got a grab bag there of cats and dogs.Now, some of those are definitely dogs, but I'd like to talk aboutthe cats. And it seems to me it's fundamentally unfair to sort of tarthe cats with the scent of the dogs. MR. WATTENBERG: All right, tell us some cat stories. MR. SHAPIRO: You kind of lost me at the zoo. (Laughter.) MR. WATTENBERG: This is what we call in television the littlegenie stories. Here is an example, okay. MR. FLAMM: An excellent example is the Sematech case, which youbrought up in your introductory remarks. Now, the Sematech investmentby the Department of Defense was undertaken originally, and it wasmotivated by national security considerations. There was a defensescience board report in the 1985 86 framework which said that we werereally concerned about having access to leading-edge technology forsemiconductors, which are as critical as jet engines or advancedsensors or anything else to modern armaments, in the mid 1980s. Well,we had a problem. So what did we do about it? Did it make sense totry to construct a captive defense-only semiconductor industry thatwould specialize only in defense chips? Or did it make more sense toput money into sort of a broad infrastructure that would ensure thatDOD had access to technology it needed? We did the latter. It's been a highly successful program. Contrary to yourintroductory remarks, it has not just subsidized a handful of firms.In fact, in addition to being a cooperative effort, almost all of theeffort in Sematech has not gone to developing products or processesthat are proprietary to an individual firm or even to the group of 12or 14 firms that belong to Sematech. It's gone to the infrastructure,the supplier base. MR. WATTENBERG: You are -- MR. FLAMM: Everybody in the semiconductor industry benefits fromthat investment. MR. WATTENBERG: Hold on. Hold on. MR. MOORE:: That is not true. (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hang on, hang on. Hold on. MR. MOORE: Even the people in the industry say that. MR. FLAMM: You're wrong about that, fundamentally. MR. MOORE: No. T.J. Rogers -- MR. FLAMM: T.J. is an extremist on this issue. (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hold on. John McLaughlin has left this podium. MR. SHAPIRO: Very heated topic. MR. WATTENBERG: Who wanted to say something uninterrupted?(Laughter.) MR. CHIMERINE: I wanted to say this, and I think what's gottenlost in the current debate on budget cutting, on reaching a balancedbudget, is, number one, no one is doing a careful analysis of whichof these programs are in the national interest and which are not.They're all being looked at as basically the same. MR. SHAPIRO: The biggest cuts are aimed, in my view, at -- thebiggest cuts are coming from poor people. Second of all, the -- MR. WATTENBERG: No, wait. We're talking about corporate welfare.That's the topic for this discussion. MR. SHAPIRO: Right, but in terms of programs which directly affectthe economy, the largest cuts, in my view, or the most damaging cutsare coming from areas of traditional public investment in educationand training and in basic research, and that is clearly a mistake. MR. CHIMERINE: And I agree with you. MR. SHAPIRO: It's clearly a mistake, and one of the -- but thefact is we cannot fund education and training without cutting otherprograms that don't work. MR. WATTENBERG: Are you saying that the current budget has veryfew cuts in corporate welfare? Is that your --- MR. SHAPIRO: Virtually none. Virtually none. Virtually none. MR. WATTENBERG: And do you agree with that? Hold on. MR. MOORE: Yeah, and you know, the politics of this is important,Ben, because the fact of the matter is that you're quite right, thatthere are cuts in low-income welfare programs, and I think it's hardfor Republicans to make the case that they're cutting programs forlow-income people when they're not cutting subsidies for wealthierpeople and -- (inaudible) -- MR. CHIMERINE: But Steve, but Steve, wait, wait, hold on. Butlook, this is a confusion because you're using a synonymous word,welfare as in social welfare and welfare as in corporate welfare.They are two very different sorts of things, and I don't think theycan be blended. So let's talk -- and we can have an argument aboutthat, but let's talk about corporate welfare. MR. MOORE: Well, when you're giving handouts to businesses, Ithink that's as indefensible as giving handouts to individuals. Youknow, the central premise -- MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but Steve, look, the case against givinghandouts to individuals is that it causes dependency and familybreakdown. MR. MOORE: And that's exactly what it's done in the corporatewelfare area, Ben. It's caused -- I mean look at the -- (Cross talk.) MR. SHAPIRO: When you subsidize, when you artificially subsidizethe rate of return of a particular industry, you reduce the naturalcompetitive pressures on that industry to figure out how to be moreinnovative, how to be more efficient. In that sense, it tends toweaken the vitality of an industry in much the same way that somepeople claim, and I'm not fully willing to accept it, thatincome-support programs have undermined the initiative of poorpeople. I don't accept that argument, but in fact it is classically-- classic economics says that that is what happens in industrysubsidies. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you really think that there are no real cuts inthe corporate sector? Let's just try and establish that fact. On anet basis, on a net basis. MR. CHIMERINE: I think in the technology programs, Rob -- MR. SHAPIRO: There are cuts -- MR. CHIMERINE: -- and in the export promotion, export financingprograms, that cuts are large. The kinds of programs you're talkingabout, which are much more handout-type, corporate welfare programs,largely are escaping. So it's really a matter of priorities. MR. CHIMERINE: I agree with you. MR. FLAMM: Let me give a number on that. MR. WATTENBERG: Go ahead. MR. FLAMM: Okay. The budget as it now stands, the version thatprobably is going to be vetoed actually, cuts our aggregateinvestment, federal investment in science and technology by about 30percent over the next several years. That's a huge cut. That'skilling the goose that laid the golden eggs. This is fundamentalinvestment. MR. WATTENBERG: Does that include military -- MR. FLAMM: This is the future economy. This is what's going tocreate those jobs in the future. MR. SHAPIRO: Once again, the issue -- MR. FLAMM: Well, I suggest you look at history on some of theseareas. MR. MOORE: Well, I'll tell you a little bit about the history. (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: Let Steve go. Let Steve go. MR. MOORE: Let's look at a couple examples. I mean, we spent over$3 billion in the late 1970s on something called the Synthetic FuelsCorporation. MR. WATTENBERG: Uh-oh. MR. MOORE: This was something that the Carter administration, theybasically said the government is going to come up with the nextgeneration of fuel. MR. CHIMERINE: So what? MR. MOORE: It was $3 billion that was down the drain. Governmentbureaucrats -- MR. CHIMERINE: How many successes have we had? MR. FLAMM: Do you really want to -- MR. MOORE: There's another example, the supersonic transport -- MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it. Hold it. What is so wrong with -- I mean,we are beating the pants off the whole world in commerce and inresearch and in development. MR. CHIMERINE: We are? MR. WATTENBERG: I believe so. MR. CHIMERINE: Oh, in a lot of -- MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, you may think the Japanese economy isdoing well, but that's not what my information says. MR. CHIMERINE: No, the Japanese domestic economy is not doingwell, but the Japanese have invested at a high rate for a number ofyears in a number of technologies. They now have almost a monopolyfor flat panels, ceramic packaging. A number of other technologies,we're almost completely dependent on the Japanese. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, why is their per capita income 40 percentlower than ours? MR. CHIMERINE: Well, there are a whole sort of -- a whole batch offactors, including the banking problems and others, that are holdingdown the domestic economy. It hasn't affected their competitivenessin global markets significantly. But the other point, Ben, is that, first of all, some of theproducts you were talking about have resulted from technologies thatwere developed in part with government funding. The Internet, a wholerange of other technologies. And secondly, increasingly in the private sector, new R&D isfocusing on commercialization, on short-term payoff kinds ofinvestments or technologies. Wall Street penalizes you if youannounce more investment or more spending on R&D with a long-termpayoff. The short-term sort of mentality and planning horizon, in myopinion, will be harmful on a long-term basis, and one of theobjectives of the programs that Ken is defending and I am defendingis to make sure there is adequate funding for smaller companies, newtechnologies, new research that will have a long-term payoff. MR. SHAPIRO: Let me -- MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it, hold it. This side, just hold it for aminute. MR. SHAPIRO: Let me make two short points. MR. WATTENBERG: Rob Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute. MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Ben. Two short points. One is that all ofthese programs represent between 5 and 10 percent of the totalcatalogue of industry-specific subsidies that serve no overridingsocial purpose in the budget and the tax code. If we could agree toeliminate the other 90 percent, we would be 90 percent there. MR. WATTENBERG: But they say it's not 90 percent. MR. SHAPIRO: Second -- I'm talking about ag supports and energysupports and ethanol, et cetera. The second point is that, yes, it isthe case that Japan is going to lead us in some technologies andGermany is going to lead us in some and France is going to lead us insome, and we're going to lead all of them in others. This is the waya global economy works. MR. WATTENBERG: Would you folks -- I mean, briefly -- Robmentioned the magic word ethanol. It takes -- I am told it takes moreenergy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon yields whenyou put it in a car. Is there any excuse -- and it's a billion-dollarsubsidy, more -- MR. CHIMERINE: A year. MR. WATTENBERG: A year. MR. FLAMM: Look, the bottom line -- actually, Steve mentioned SynFuels, which is a long and complicated story, okay? It's everybody'sfavorite technology whipping boy. But the bottom -- MR. WATTENBERG:We're bringing up ethanol, not Syn Fuels. MR. FLAMM: Okay, I know. I don't know the specifics on ethanol. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you know the specifics? MR. CHIMERINE: I haven't studied it carefully, Ben, but on thesurface, I would probably agree with Rob on that one. MR. FLAMM: Let's talk about Syn Fuels. Where did Syn Fuels comefrom? Steve brought it up. Syn Fuels came into being when we wereconcerned about an embargo on energy sources for the United States.Syn Fuel was an emergency stopgap measure to develop somethingquickly so that we had an alternative were the oil supply to be cutoff, okay? It was a product of the times, and you can't understandSyn Fuels by going back and saying, well, it was a -- you know, lookat oil prices now, look at Syn Fuels. Was this economically a mistakeat the time. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, I remember it being a mistake at the time. MR. MOORE: People said that they thought that energy prices wouldrise. A lot of us said, no, energy prices would fall. MR. FLAMM: But the issue was -- but you're taking it out ofcontext. That was done fundamentally for national/energy securityreasons. MR. MOORE: But it was a -- MR. FLAMM: It was not in the hope they could make a profit. MR. WATTENBERG: I want to ask a somewhat -- you got the high roadsand the low roads -- I'm going to ask a super high road question, ora super low road question, which is this. What happens here inWashington in the federal government is you have corporate subsidies,you have social subsidies, you have congressmen getting specificpork-barrel items for this and that. You have senators gettingstatewide things. Everybody -- it's sort of an ugly grab bag.However, at the end of the day, if you have a decent congressman anda couple decent senators, everybody in one form or another is gettingsomething. I won't say it balances out totally, but it sort ofbalances out. And in fact, isn't it really a form of economicdemocracy that part of your gross national product is not decided oneconomic merit, but on political, democratic clout, as tradeoffs oneto another? Is that such a terrible thing, to take X percent of yourbudget and divvy it up that way? MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I think there are two things. One is that thedistribution of -- that that political influence is not distributedevenly throughout the country, and certain groups have a great dealmore influence. If you look at the tax breaks, for example, theycorrespond to industries concentrated in the states with the leadingmembers of the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and MeansCommittee when those breaks were enacted. And moreover, wealthier industries and -- MR. WATTENBERG: But other senators sit on the Ag Committee andother senators sit on Public Works, and everybody -- MR. SHAPIRO: If we had a sound economy, if we had an economy thatwas growing at 3 to 4 percent a year in real terms, like it was inthe 1950s and 1960s, and high investment and decent savings rates, wecould afford to throw away a hundred billion dollars a year onindustry subsidies that interfere with the allocation of resourcesthroughout the economy because the economy would be strong enough toabsorb it. MR. FLAMM: I think he's fundamentally right. Let's get rid of thepork, okay? There's a lot of pork out there, and I don't think any ofus -- there's a lot of stuff out there that doesn't meet a socialobjective, so let's stipulate that we get rid of the stuff that's outthere -- MR. SHAPIRO: That's about 90 percent of industry subsidies. MR.FLAMM: I don't think we disagree with you on that. MR. SHAPIRO: That's good. MR. FLAMM: I've seen enough pork in my time to know that it wouldbe a good thing today to get rid of it. MR. WATTENBERG: So you are an industry-specific pork-barreleer? MR. FLAMM: No, absolutely not. MR. WATTENBERG: Or you are an industry-specific -- MR. SHAPIRO: Only for high technology. MR. FLAMM: No, not at all. Absolutely not. MR. WATTENBERG: -- planning, which is research and development, isthat right? MR. FLAMM: Research and development should be understood as thehigh-tech seed corn for tomorrow. MR. MOORE: The problem with this is that this is done in apolitical context. I mean, government happens in a political context,and you cannot separate the economics from the politics of it. Why dowe have programs like ethanol subsidies, as you mentioned? It's notbecause there's any social merit in ethanol. It's because ArcherDaniels Midland gives a lot of money to a lot of politicalcandidates. MR. WATTENBERG: And it's a great benefit to farmers. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, to a number of farmers. ADM has 80 percent ofthat market. MR. MOORE: Well, let me just make one last point. I am not abusiness basher. I agree with Ken. I want to see the United Stateshave the best high technology industry in the world, I want to see uslead the way in research and development. Where I disagree with himis how that is achieved. Look, with the 10 or 20 billion dollars we spend per year ongovernment-subsidized research and development, we could virtuallyeliminate the capital gains tax in this country. Now, if we did that,we would have much more research and development going on, much moreentrepreneurship than through research. MR. CHIMERINE: That's absolutely -- MR. WATTENBERG: Larry. MR. CHIMERINE: Two points. First of all, you're making a verystrong case for campaign financing reform and other reforms of thepolitical system, not for eliminating all the technology programs orexport promotion programs. Secondly, your last argument, there is no evidence to support --no credible evidence to support the view that a cut in capital gainstaxes will stimulate meaningful, productive, long-term investment orsavings, for that matter. (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, we'll savecapital gains for another program. Thank you, Stephen Moore, LawrenceChimerine, Robert Shapiro, and Kenneth Flamm. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from you. Please send yourcomments and questions to: New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW,Suite 1050, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we can be reached via e-mail atthinktv@aol.com, or on the World Wide Web at www.thinktank.com. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: This has been aproduction of BJW, Incorporated, in association with New River Media,which are solely responsible for its content. 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, a recipient of thepresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, unlocking thesecrets of life through cellular and molecular biology. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. END Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |