"Cost of tribal tax deal increases"
Agreements between [Mrs.] Gregoire and two American Indian tribes over sharing gasoline-tax collections will shift $800,000 more to the two tribes than was previously disclosed.It should surprise no one to learn which politicians benefit most from the largesse of the Swinomish and Squaxin Island tribes. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 08, 2006 10:54 AM | Email ThisThe written agreements, which settle claims by the Squaxin Island and Swinomish tribes, follow a federal court ruling that said Washington had no right to the 34-cents-per-gallon tax collected at the pumps on reservation lands - even for nontribal customers.
Anyone?
Posted by: TB on August 8, 2006 11:50 AMtoss the tribes in the same (but unregulated) capitalist pool (without special treatments) as the other small businesses, bars, hotels & restaurants and gambling houses who compete against them and we'll see how they REALLY do;
if they are really good businesspeople, why don't they challenge us taxpayer-subsidizer-sponsors and prove us wrong? stand on your own and I will take note! at some point, we all have to lose our training wheels, crutches and other supports--it's called "therapy," right?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 8, 2006 01:03 PM
Gregoire - $4,550
Rossi - $450
It is totally slanted towards Democrats and leftist judges. More reason to boycott those tribal cancers.
Posted by: AP on August 8, 2006 02:21 PMIf I'm not mistaken, gasoline IS taxed at the wholesale level. They have to pay B&O and all the other taxes any manufacturing concern in the state does. Refining gas from crude is "manufacturing" as defined by the state.
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 8, 2006 04:48 PMThat and Judge Zilly's ruling: as noted several months ago on Indianz.com, the Supreme Court already upheld Kansas' right to collect tax on gasoline sold on reservations. That case was about all gasoline sold regardless of who buys it. How likely is it that the Court will rule in favor of the Tribes on gasoline sold to non‑Tribal members in Washington State?
Somewhere between zero and none, I think.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 8, 2006 07:37 PM10. If the tribes are their own sovereign nations, then why should their members even get to vote at all? — ferrous, aka "rusty anonymous whatever" (posting anonymously under the fake email address whatever@whatever.com)" on August 8, 2006 03:15 PM
I already answered that nut burger challenge:
"Sovereign nation" is the historical basis of our relationship; "domestic dependent nation" is the contemporary procedural reality. Neither precludes the rights of dual citizenship. Canadian citizens can retain their citizenship in Canada, a sovereign nation, and yet become American citizens with all rights enjoyed by native-born Americans. Except for the right to run for president, which they couldn't do anyway. — Me, Comment #3, The Tulalips Are Good At Irritating People, Sound Politics, July 29, 2006
One thing I appreciate about anonymous posters is that whether on the left or right they always include those who vent the most vicious and extreme views, which are always helpful for those of us who use their fulminations to precipitate more refined arguments.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 8, 2006 07:50 PMYou folks sound no different then whiny Democrats, who are always complaining about the rich not paying their fair share.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 8, 2006 09:49 PMPosted by sgmmac at August 8, 2006 12:34 PM
-----------------------------------------
Good question. The state doesn't deserve, nor have a right to, the tax revenue IMHO... nor constitutionally, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by: StealsThunder on August 8, 2006 10:29 PMJust remember that state road you don't want them to drive on is built on what was formerly their land that didn't get paid for. While I don't think rehashing the past is beneficial for Indians because it won't change past - letting them have a nice low-tax, low-regulation area is a good, reasonable, and conservative plan which if done right would spur development and reduce the alcoholism, drug abuse, and single parenting so prevelent in these communities (I'm a NW Indian/White mix by the way with my grandfather growing up on a WA reservation).
Posted by: John McDonald on August 9, 2006 07:10 AMIn the US, if the first generation is successful, the second generation is probably okay, but the third generation is worthless. Why? Because they have the money handed to them. It is human nature.
I also see it with immigrant families that grew up in refugee camps, came to America, became successful or worked two or three jobs and now the younger generation has been spoiled by the good life in America. It is human nature.
If you want to stamp out drugs and alcohol, come up with something to make their lives more meaningful. If you can, give the rest of the US the secret.
Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2006 07:25 AMJohn at 18--i agree with Swatter at 19: perhaps you're right, but, like other American minorities and like Africa with foreign aid, how long do we have to wait for results? forever? any company, government or family has deadlines; when do taxpayers see our measurable results and accountability for our long-term "investments" (i.e. tax breaks and preferences)?
like our schools, it's obvious that money/breaks itself do not cure all; and--taxpayers are right to expect (real) results at some point or cut off poor 'investments;' thus the conservative frustration you hear of the apparent 'eternal welfare and dependency industry'--i suggest "cultural self-policing"--demanding excellence from your own to show the world you actually CAN do it--and then actually do it; anyone would rally behind that success, don't you agree?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 9, 2006 11:12 AMSeattle-area anthropologist Jim Chatters ignited much of the controversy over Kennewick Man when he said the skull looked more "Caucasoid" than Native American. — Old bones are telling new tales, Sandi Doughton, The Seattle Times, May 8th, 2006
But others note a closer resemblance to the Ainu of Japan:
When C. Loring Brace, 75, saw a picture of Kennewick Man's skull accompanying a New York Times article in 1996, he instantly knew where his ancestors came from. … "One look at that thing, and I knew it was going to relate to the Ainu of Japan," he said. … Brace, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, had to wait nearly nine years to study Kennewick Man. … Brace said Kennewick Man is likely related to the ancient Jomon, who also were the ancestors of the Ainu people of Japan. … Kennewick Man might have been compared to a European when he was first discovered, because the Jomon people share similar characteristics, Brace explained. — Kennewick Man's bones provide window to past, Anna King, Herald staff writer, July 23rd, 2006
Kennewick Man isn't the only ancient one in the Northwest. In 1996 in On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales Island a 10,300 year‑old skeleton was discovered. DNA testing revealed a number of his descendants:
The DNA was compared with mitochondrial DNA from more than 3,000 Native American sequences taken from public databases. Matches were obtained from samples of modern and ancient individuals, with the coastal Cayapa of Ecuador accounting for more than 50% of the matches. Others included the Chumash (California), the Klunk Mound people (Illinois), the Tarahumara (Chihuahua, Mexico), and the Mapuche and Yaghan tribes (Chile) — thereby tracing a possible migration route. — Oldest Human DNA in the Americas
Were it up to me, I would allow Kennewick Man to be studied and his DNA tested. And what if the DNA tests did reveal that he was Caucasian? Even, say, a Caucasian from the exact same spot where Michael's ancestors hail from, what then?
It would change nothing. The reason being that even if Kennewick Man emigrated from the same place as Michael's ancestors, unless he left children behind then, Michael might be related to him but not be descended from him. But modern American Indians very likely are descended from him, and DNA testing would probably link him to us.
This is the same issue that the proponents of the African American Reparations Tribunal don't grasp. In 2004 on a Yahoo group I engaged in a discussion with Dr. Mustafa Ansari, who contends that the discovery in Brazil of an 11,500 year‑old skull of a woman with "Negroid" features proves that African Americans were here first, and so all non‑black Americans owe reparations to African Americans.
When I pointed out to him that even if she was from Africa I was more likely to be her descendant than he was, he flipped out, had me banned from the Yahoo group, and shortly thereafter he terminated the group.
If an African woman lived and died in Brazil 11,500 years ago, realities of the time dictated that if she had any offspring it is virtually certain that she had them in Brazil and it is likely that they and their descendants remained in the area. Assuming that they were not wiped out by some natural cause they were probably absorbed into other populations. Just as Kennewick Man's progeny would have been.
So it doesn't make any difference.
What does make a difference, and I guess it's my job to explain this, is that American Indians are Conservatives buried beneath a Liberal blanket. On the 100th monkey Day, when this fact suddenly crystallizes into conservative consciousness, everything will change. It will change for the better.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 9, 2006 09:13 PMBut I think if Native Americans want to drive on our highways, they should help pay for them. It is a user-pay system. The "it is really their land anyway" argument is tired.
Posted by: Michael on August 10, 2006 03:59 AMMoreover, since then archaeologist have uncovered 40,000 to 70,000 year old footsteps in Mexico,at a time that Asia was just awakening. These finds are only background to an 800.000 to 900,000 stone tool find in Indonesia, which is clearly at a time before the 30,000- 50,000 Bering strait emergence.
Finally, Mr. Mechelen is not an honest man since this discussion took place on the BlackIndian website that I had no control over and was closed because of the racist comments of Caucasian/admixtured Indians who wanted to retain the myth of Mongoloid origins.
It is not decent to lie Mr. Mechelen. I stand available to debate this question on radio anytime.
Dr.Mustafa Ansari
Chief Justice
Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal
But I think if Native Americans want to drive on our highways, they should help pay for them. It is a user-pay system.
I do "want to drive on our highways." And I do "help pay for them." So do the vast majority of American Indians. So what, besides highlighting another stereotype�that American Indians don't pay taxes�was your point?
Michael (post #24) also claimed:
The "it is really their land anyway" argument is tired.
That's an interesting point. In the case of my tribe, it's actually true. We (historical context: we're talking about my great-great-great grandfolks here) negotiated a truce with the federal government, we honored our end of the bargain, the agents with whom we negotiated pleaded with Washington (D.C.) to honor the government's commitment, it did not, and for 150 years we persisted in our efforts to exercise our rights, won our acknowledgement and are now moving forward.
We recognize that in practical terms it's pointless to claim that southwestern Washington is "really" our land, but it tends to come up in discussions because of those who oppose our rights.
Hint to conservatives: Indian Tribes are inherently conservative. Not so much in the superficial meaning of the word that Thom Hartmann likes to exploit as in the sense of the term as it was used by Russell Kirk. This makes us natural allies. Politics has gotten in the way. Set political expedience aside to see the natural alliance, and many points of contention will fall by the wayside.
Everybody does it. Even Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal, who accused me of lying but omits a rather significant detail: the purported lie.
He claims our past discussion took place on a "BlackIndian website." If I was of the victim-mentality demonstrated by Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal, I might be tempted to accuse him of lying. Conservatives, however, understand human nature, the complexities of life, and that such things happen more often from oversight than from evil intentions. So I'll simply correct his error by pointing out that our discussion took place on the BlackIndianActivists Yahoo Group, not "BlackIndian website."
As for the part about Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal, having no control over it, from my perspective it appeared that he had much influence over the "owner" of the group. If he says he did not have control over it I'll accept that. It might, however, be of interested to Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal, to know that I have archived all 314 posts from our conversation dated from February 26, 2004, to April 25, 2004.
Another error is that he describes some of us as "Caucasian/admixtured Indians who wanted to retain the myth of Mongoloid origins." My Cherokee teacher, Ugidali, taught me that from time immemorial people have been coming to the Americas from all parts of the world, and that we are descended from them all. Including the "Africoids" of Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal.
Dr.Mustafa Ansari, Chief Justice, Indigenous African American Reparations Tribunal, also noted the following:
Moreover, since then archaeologist have uncovered 40,000 to 70,000 year old footsteps in Mexico, at a time that Asia was just awakening. These finds are only background to an 800.000 to 900,000 stone tool find in Indonesia, which is clearly at a time before the 30,000- 50,000 Bering strait emergence.
That's interesting information, thank you for sharing, but if there is a particular point that this information is supposed to make then perhaps you would share it with us. Otherwise I'll just take it as more evidence that my ancestors have been around here for a very, very long time.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 16, 2006 05:50 AMTo me, my kin, my tribe and the other tribes it matters, of course, that we are from this place and that our roots sink deeply into the bedrock of this place. To generalize, we share a perspective similar to that of other tribal people. That perspective is historic.
In the suburb south of Seattle where I grew up, many of my peers scarcely knew their grandparents and knew little if anything of the generations preceeding them.
Like many Jews, Indians and other tribal people, however, I grew up thinking in terms of many generations, knowing stories about my ancestors. Elders whom I loved and respected, themselves knew, loved and respected people who were born here before the white man came.
Oh, yea, yea we know, evil whites...
No, it's not about that. Our Indian eyes also looked for and saw our white ancestors, and through the process of connecting the generations know personalities from long ago and far away. People with whom we feel the bond of kinship.
More Americans are developing this perspective and I think it is a good thing.
With respect to the issue at hand, broadly speaking it does not matter who got here first. What American Indian tribes have is a legal claim. A title subordinate only to the Constitution and Congress.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 19, 2006 07:19 PM