In the landscape of non-profits, The Urban Institute is one of the towering mountains. With an annual income of more than $88 million and assets topping $163 million, few others even come close. That much money buys a lot of publicity and influence. The New York Times described the Urban Institute as “a major research organization, evaluating every aspect of national domestic affairs from taxes to the performance of the President. The Los Angeles Times labeled it a “leading liberal think tank”. When it released a report claiming that repeal of ObamaCare would be a disaster for Americans, the report was all over the news.

The Institute’s President, Sarah Rosen Wartell, previously worked for the Clinton administration in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), then moved on to become executive vice-president of the left-wing Center for American Progress. Senior Vice President Margery Turner also worked at HUD under Clinton, and has been a strong advocate of government policies to move poor people out of the inner city to other neighborhoods. A look at the Board of Directors finds that several have worked in Democratic administrations, and the only one to serve under a Republican started in government with an appointment from Jimmy Carter.

Such a well-funded and well-connected organization should have no need for a taxpayer subsidy, yet it received $268,840,561 during the eight years of President Obama.

It is no surprise that an organization led by liberal Democrats and funded in large part by the Obama administration has been outspokenly on the side of the American Left. In fact, it has weighed in on virtually every issue being pushed by liberals.

When President Obama unveiled his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) amnesty program after the 2014 elections, the Urban Institute produced a report casting it in a favorable light. It has also argued against building a wall along the Mexican border, against deporting illegal aliens, and denied that illegals take jobs from Americans.

Obama’s anti-energy, anti-jobs Clean Power Plan was criticized only for its relative moderation, which made it “a hard pill to swallow”, but it was praised for its alleged benefits, especially for low income Americans.

A study of sentencing reform bemoaned the resistance and “changes in the political climate” that made it difficult to reach the goal of putting criminals back on the streets, attempting to reverse two politically-incorrect decades in which reduced crime rates and increased prison populations went hand in hand.

The 1996 welfare reform forced on a reluctant President Clinton by conservatives in Congress was strongly criticized by the Institute at the time, claiming that all the criticisms of welfare were wrong and that the bill was really “designed to dismantle the welfare state that has existed for the past 60 years.” Although the results of reform won praise from many, the Institute was still hostile 15 years later, calling for increased spending on welfare programs.

The Death Tax is portrayed as something wonderful that must be preserved, a “cornerstone” of a good tax system, while studies finding negative effects from the tax on Social Security benefits were firmly denied.

Lack of gun control is put forth as the reason for homicides, homosexual marriage is described as a good policy, and the increase in the number of people on Food Stamps is a positive development.

No doubt most liberals would consider the Urban Institute a good investment for their donations, but should American taxpayers be sending them tens of millions each year? That is a decision the Trump administration will need to face.