What Would Tony Merten Think About Our Situation Today?

Chiricahua Apache leader Geronimo 1886
Chiricahua Apache leader Geronimo and three warriors, 1886 (Wikipedia)

On Saturday, March 2, 1996, I was surprised to receive a large, padded envelope in the mail. The return address showed it had been sent from New Mexico by someone named Tony Merten. I didn’t know who that was until I opened the envelope and found a bright red t-shirt with a large black graphic on its front.  The image was a copy of the famous 1886 photo of the hostile Chiricahua Apache leader Geronimo and three of his warriors, taken in Cañon de los Embudos in the Sierra Madre Mountains in northern Mexico during their peace talks with U.S. General George Crook. There was also some text surrounding the image on the t-shirt that read, “MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS KILLED COWBOYS.”

There wasn’t a note in the package, but the t-shirt reminded me that I’d met Tony at an environmental workshop on public lands grazing at Arizona State University a few weeks earlier, the first weekend of February. The event was sponsored by the Arizona Grazing Clearinghouse, a loose consortium of local public lands grazing activists. I was a founding member of that group and had been one of the featured speakers at the workshop. Prior to that event I’d never met or heard of Tony, but he came up to me after I finished my bit and introduced himself. He complimented me on my presentation and also said that he appreciated all the articles I’d written on the topic and was glad to finally meet me in person.

It wasn’t the first time I’d been recognized for my work. In 1993 I’d been  chosen by the National Wildlife Federation as Arizona’s representative to go to Washington, D.C., for several days as part of a campaign to lobby Congress for public lands range reform. And I was one of the local environmentalists selected to sit on the panel with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in 1994 when he visited Phoenix to discuss his Rangeland Reform ’94  proposals. But it was quite memorable to have a stranger seek you out at a crowded meeting to shake your hand and compliment you in person.

Several days after receiving the t-shirt I was shocked to learn that Tony had been found dead at his remote home in rural southern New Mexico from an apparent suicide. The news story said that Tony had been under suspicion by local authorities for shooting about a dozen cattle grazing on public land near his house, and that he’d recently sent letters to friends implying that he was going to kill himself. One of those folks had notified the Luna County Sheriff’s office and on February 28 they discovered Tony was sitting dead in the greenhouse behind his house with a pistol in his hand and a bullet hole in his head. He’d obviously been dead for several days. I realized that sending me the t-shirt was one of the last things he’d done, but more importantly, I couldn’t understand why he had killed himself. I decided to keep the t-shirt to remember him.

I wasn’t the only one that couldn’t understand why Tony had killed himself. One of his friends, Will Baker, was a writer. He was so puzzled by Tony’s suicide that he published a book about it in 2000 titled Tony and the Cows. The book included more details about the official investigation into Tony’s death. The effort to identify the killer of the cattle began on February 15 when their carcasses were discovered. Investigators visited the few homes in the area later that day to ask if anyone had seen or heard anything, and Tony’s house was one of them. Tony denied any knowledge of the shootings. The investigators found more evidence the next day and it seemed to point to Tony. They stopped at his place to talk to him again, and were soon joined by the rancher who had owned the cattle. Tony became defensive and the conversations ended.

The following day, February 17, Tony penned the letter to his friends wherein he wrote that humans were destroying the Earth’s ecosystem and he saw “no hope” for the planet. “It is better to check out now than sometime later,” he explained. “Tell everyone I loved them all.” Tony may have killed himself later that day, or another day afterwards, but the official date on his death certificate is February 27.

A few days ago I was cleaning out my dresser and at the bottom of one of the drawers I came across the t-shirt Tony had sent me. I noticed, for the first time, that it’s size was extra large, which made me think that Tony had probably worn it, as he had been a large, athletic man.

Finding the t-shirt also renewed my bewilderment about why Tony had killed himself. Baker suggested in his book that Tony had been very lonely because he lived out in the Chihuahuan Desert by himself and hadn’t had a girlfriend in more than a year. But I decided I would use modern information technology to search through public records online for more information about Tony.

I discovered that his given name was George Anthony Merten. He was called Tony because his father’s first name was George too. He was born in 1952 in Los Angeles and grew up in West Covina, a suburb of LA. He had two brothers and three sisters, and was a star wrestler at West Covina’s Edgewood High School. He subsequently wrestled for the University of Redlands, in nearby San Bernardino County. My online research also discovered that Tony was divorced, and had no children.

Tony Merten
Tony Merten, May 1981 (Marce Guerrein)

On April 12, 1980, a  group of 37 people left San Francisco with the intent to backpack across the entire U.S. They traversed 13 states before finishing at Delaware’s Cape Henlopen State Park on May 27, 1981.  Tony was one of the hikers interviewed there by a newspaper reporter covering the event for the The Baltimore Sun.

“I wish it could go on forever,” he told her. He said that he’d left the U.S. Army, where he’d achieved the rank of lieutenant, in order to join the hike.* “I have achieved autonomy in my life,” he explained, and said that the hike had given him freedom from “boredom, routine, and authority.” Financial solvency was the key, he told her, and he explained he’d achieved it by saving most of his Army pay.

When Tony died he was a leader of the Southern New Mexico Group of the of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, and an active member of many other environmental groups. Perhaps environmental activism had become the most important thing in his life, and when it looked like it was going to be taken away from him, he decided to end it? But part of his decision to die obviously came from his belief that humans were irrevocably destroying the Earth’s ecosystem. So, in honor of Tony, let’s compare the current situation with the way things were back in 1996.

In regards to the specific issue of livestock grazing on Western public lands, today’s situation isn’t great, but it’s better than the bad old days, when public land managers routinely ignored environmental laws in favor of the ranchers. The fees ranchers pay to graze their cattle on public land were never increased to match the rates paid for private grazing land. But due to the steady pressure applied by local grazing activists, accompanied by lawsuits from conservation groups like Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project, existing environmental laws were finally applied to many grazing allotment management plans – despite strong opposition from ranchers.

In Arizona, for example, many perennial streams on public land have been protected from livestock damage and forage utilization rates on numerous upland pastures have been limited to conservative levels. Public land managers have also started admitting that some areas, like hot deserts, aren’t suited for grazing. And conservation groups have “bought out” ranchers holding grazing permits for public lands that needed to be permanently retired from grazing.

But these days it’s costing the taxpayers more than ever to subsidize public lands ranchers because millions of dollars are now available to them through Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grants. And well-intentioned but misguided people are still promoting the junk science of Holistic Resource Management (HRM) grazing schemes. Furthermore, there’s a persistent, but small, number of right-wing kooks, like Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, that are ideologically opposed to the concept of public lands, and think they should be turned over to the states or local governments.

Overall, however, there have been significant improvements in livestock grazing management on the nation’s public lands, especially those with sensitive resources. This was accomplished by a generation of dedicated Western environmentalists. Some of the major contributors, like Tom Lusting, Joe Feller, and Bob Ohmart, are already gone. Their achievements are significant because livestock grazing is the most pervasive use of our public lands, with about 27,000 permittees grazing livestock on about 270 million acres.

But these improvements in the management of livestock grazing on public lands are threatened, like so much other progress, by the anti-environmental agenda of the Donald Trump administration. Since he took office in 2017 some Forest Service staff in Arizona have arbitrarily classified controversial livestock management decisions as categorically exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public review process. And the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing a national pilot project that turns livestock management over to grazing permittees, without any public input, in order to give ranchers more “flexibility” because they know “better than anyone” what to do.

If Tony were alive today I presume he would want to oppose Trump’s regressive environmental policies. Maybe, however, he would think activism is entirely futile now because there’s no hope for the planet because human caused climate change from the burning of fossil fuels is accelerating in alarming ways that weren’t predicted. I wish he was still here though, so that we could try and convince him to help us fight.

* According to the National Personnel Records Center at the National Archives, George Anthony Merten served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 06/24/77 to 06/23/80, achieving the rank of 1st Lieutenant.

Will Corporate Tax Cuts Really Reduce the U.S. Budget Deficit?

Mick Mulvaney
Mick Mulvaney (Wikipedia)

President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress are trying to pass federal tax reform legislation that could increase the U.S. government’s burgeoning debt by trillions of dollars. The federal government already owes more than $20 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than the current annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). And the $666 billion budget deficit for the federal fiscal year that concluded in October was the sixth highest on record.

Most economists say the best way to reduce the budget deficit without hurting the economy is by gradually implementing a combination of carefully crafted spending cuts and tax increases. But Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former Congressman Mick Mulvaney, says there’s no political will in Congress to make spending cuts, so the only way to reduce the deficit is to increase tax revenue by stimulating annual economic growth to at least 3% through tax cuts.

A reduction in corporate taxes is at the core of the Republican tax reform strategy. They claim that the U.S. economy is at an international competitive disadvantage because the 35% federal corporate tax rate that’s been in effect since 1933 is among the highest in the world. They say that lowering it would increase economic growth because corporations would repatriate some earnings from foreign countries and conduct more business in the U.S.

But there is little evidence that the proposed tax cuts will generate enough compensatory growth to pay for themselves. For example, if 25% of U.S. income goes to towards taxes, every $1 of tax cuts would have to generate more than $5 of increased economic activity. And history shows that previous Republican tax cuts failed to produce promised increases in tax revenue. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s the Republicans gave tax cuts to the wealthy that were supposed to generate growth and income that would “trickle down” to the middle and lower classes. Instead, their supply-side strategy significantly increased the national debt, shrank the middle class, increased unemployment, and accelerated income inequality. In other words, the wealthy people just kept most of the money.

Furthermore, while the statutory U.S. corporate tax rate is high, corporations can take expense deductions that make their effective tax rates lower. According to a 2017 Congressional Budget Office report, the U.S. effective corporate tax rate was only 18.6% in 2012. Also, corporations consider many factors when they make business decisions. A tax rate would be the deciding factor only if all other things were equal. And few corporations are willing to pass up the profitable privilege of doing business in the U.S., the world’s largest economy.

Some corporations, of course, would use the money they’d save from a reduction in corporate tax rates to invest in new production. But many would simply inflate their stock values by buying back stock, increasing dividend payments to their stockholders, or they would pay their executive officers to even more outrageous amounts. These things would contribute little to economic growth, as most stock dividends don’t go to middle or lower income class consumers, and wealthier CEOs would just accelerate growing income inequality.

The primary lesson from the failure of supply-side economics is that not all tax cuts are the same, and that real economic stimulus comes from reducing taxes for the U.S. economy’s primary consumers – the lower and middle income classes. Subsequently, supporters of the Republican tax reform effort, including President Trump, are selling it as a tax cut for the middle class. But the middle class tax cuts included among the various features in their reform proposals are very modest, and in the Senate’s version of the bill they would expire at the end of 2025.

The reason they are set expire is because Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution in October to protect their tax reform bill from a Democratic filibuster. As long as the bill doesn’t add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, Republicans will only need 51 votes to pass it in the Senate. In other words, they know that their proposed tax cuts will significantly increase the national debt, and they’d rather eliminate tax cuts to the middle class than corporate tax cuts to avoid exceeding their self-imposed arbitrary limit on the inevitable debt increase.

Another indicator that they don’t really believe their proposed tax cuts will pay for themselves is that Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has insisted that the final version of the bill contain a “trigger” that forces reconsideration of the tax cuts if it appears they are creating a big increase in the federal budget deficit.

The truth is that the Republican fixation on implementing tax cuts is a long-held political objective, not a proven economic tool. This if further revealed by House’s version of the bill which includes a provision to eliminate the estate tax, which would cost more than $172 billion in lost tax revenue over the next 10 years in order to benefit a relative handful of ultra rich families.

The proven Keynesian strategies of creating economic stimulus by lowering interest rates and increasing government spending aren’t available because they’re already exhausted. Interest rates have been at historically low levels for years in response to the Great Recession, and the federal debt has already reached historical highs.  So, instead of doing the hard work of compromising with Democrats to make sound budget deals, Republicans are trying to sell this tax reform bill as a magical panacea. They know that if it doesn’t work, their wealthy dark money campaign donors will still be happy with their lower taxes. Also, it will make it easier for them to cut funding for popular programs they don’t like, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In the meantime, the U.S. economy is doing quite well, and an argument can be made that there’s no immediate need for any tax cuts. The minimum economic growth rate that the Trump administration claims is necessary to shrink the budget deficit has already been achieved. The economy grew by 3.1% in the second quarter, and by 3% in the third quarter of this year. At the same time, unemployment was down to 4.1% in October, the lowest its been in more than 10 years. There are still some stubborn pockets of unemployment, but they are mostly the result of technological advances that have rendered some jobs obsolete, and the laid off workers don’t have the necessary skills to succeed in the new economy. And, by the way, recent corporate profits are at all-time historical highs.

The bottom line is that the Republican tax reform proposals look an awful lot like the failed supply-side “voodoo economics” of the Reagan administration. If Republicans really want to improve the economy, they should find a way to focus tax cuts on the middle and lower income classes, while investing in education, healthcare, public transportation, and affordable daycare. This strategy could increase the federal budge deficit too, if it isn’t accompanied by fair spending cuts combined with the elimination of tax loopholes and unnecessary subsidies. But it would have a much better chance of success. It would help Americans work themselves up from the bottom, instead of giving them false hope that some crumbs might trickle down from above.

Updates

On November 30, 2017, the Senate’s parliamentarian declared that the inclusion of the “trigger” provision demanded by Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would violate the special budget resolution rules the Republicans want to use to pass the tax bill without any Democratic support.

Late in the evening of December 1, 2017, Senate Republicans finally succeeded in passing their version of a tax reform bill. A conference committee must reconcile it with the version that was previously passed by the House before a final version can be sent to President Trump for his signature.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It became effective January 1, 2018.

In July, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the federal government recorded a $74.9 billion deficit in June, a month when the government often runs a surplus, as corporate taxes dropped sharply compared to a year ago. The government had a budget surplus in June in 52 of the past 64 years.

On September 13, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department  announced the U.S. budget deficit had widened to $898 billion in the 11 months of the current federal fiscal year, which concludes at the end of September, and revenue from corporate taxes had fallen by $71 billion from a year ago.

On November 12, 2018, The New York Times newspaper reported that the biggest effect of Trump’s tax cut was to increase the federal budget deficit.

On February 13, 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the U.S. government’s public debt had accumulated to an all time record of $22 trillion. This was an increase of $2 trillion since Donald Trump took office in January 2017.

On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the U.S. budget deficit in February was $234 billion, the biggest one-month deficit in history.

Zinke’s Outcome-Based Grazing Initiative Raises Questions

Ryan Zinke
Ryan Zinke (Wikipedia)

President Donald Trump’s pick to manage the U.S. Department of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, is promoting a new “outcome-based” livestock management initiative on the public lands managed by the department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The agency has solicited its grazing permittees to submit their ranching operations for nomination to be among the 6 to 12 projects nationwide that will be part of this “demonstration program.” The stated purpose of the initiative is, “to show that livestock grazing on the public lands can operate under a more flexible framework than is commonly used in order to better reach agreed upon habitat or vegetation goals.” It might sound good, but, as always, the devil is in the details.

The BLM’s announcement of the initiative raised an immediate red flag because it included a statement from Zinke wherein he claimed that, “Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone.” Really? They know it better than the department’s professional wildlife biologists? And if ranchers know so much, then how come livestock grazing has done more damage to wildlife habitat on public lands than all other commodity uses combined? (Grazing is far more ubiquitous on public lands than mining, drilling, and tree cutting.)

The obvious message behind Zinke’s initiative is that the BLM’s current management of public lands grazing is unfair to ranchers. How? They don’t specifically say, other than to imply that it’s too rigid. The BLM explained that, “Grazing authorizations typically emphasize process and prescription. The new authorizations will instead emphasize ecological outcomes, allowing livestock operators more flexibility to make adjustments in response to changing conditions such as drought or wildland fire.” So it seems they believe that a proven prescription to achieve a desired ecological outcome is bad because it’s too strict, while more flexibility will magically provide an alternative to removing livestock from public land that has burned or is experiencing drought.

The BLM’s announcement also said that Zinke’s initiative will give local “stakeholders” a say in these demonstration projects, but it didn’t explain what that meant. Under existing federal law, the agency is required to employ the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public planning process when it implements a new livestock management plan for a grazing allotment. The NEPA process is important because it provides the general public with their only significant opportunity to provide input into livestock management on public lands. Zinke’s initiative is a demonstration project, so it’s unclear if NEPA applies, but it seems they are trying to invent a new public participation process, when a good one already exists.

I called the BLM’s national office on November 6 to ask them if the general public will have any opportunities to participate in the formulation of these new “flexible” grazing management plans. I was told that they don’t know, and that I should call my state BLM office to ask that question. So then I called the Arizona BLM office. They told me they don’t know either because they haven’t received any direction yet from the national office.

Perhaps my inability to get an answer about Zinke’s grazing initiative is simply because it’s a new program and the BLM hasn’t sorted out the details. But it’s a proposal from the Trump administration, and Donald Trump has already proven to be the most anti-environment president in modern history, and a threat to the perpetuation of the multiple use doctrine on our public lands. So I have good reason to fear that the general public’s opportunity to participate in this demonstration program will be restricted. It’s important that it’s not, because the BLM manages more than 21,000 public lands grazing allotments on millions of acres across the West and they plan to expand the use of this new process if they deem it to be “successful.”

Updates

On March 28, 2018, the BLM announced  announced 11 demonstration projects in six states for the Trump administration’s outcome-based grazing authorizations initiative.

Page 3 of 31
1 2 3 4 5 31