Note: All audio files are available to download in both mp3 and dvf format. Dvf is Sony's highly compressed digital audio recorder format, and if you have downloaded and installed Sony's free Microsoft Windows Media Player Plugin, PLAYERPLUGINSETUP.EXE, then for quality and speed you may want to play those files rather than the larger and lower quality mp3 files.
Special favors
The home page for I‑892, Tim Eyman's initiative to expand gambling in Washington state, opens with the question, "What do Boeing, Sound Transit, and tribal casinos all have in common?" Their answer? "The government gives them all special favors that they don't give anyone else."
Recent events prove the first two are true. Governor Gary Locke's now infamous tax break for Boeing is a boon for the company:
The entire tax incentives package would be worth about $28 million to the aerospace industry in the 2003-2005 biennium if the project were built in Everett and $108.5 million in the 2005-2007 biennium. The impact in the later years will be about $120 million per year. — Will $28‑million tax incentive be enough for Boeing?, The Seattle Press, June 11, 2003
Unfortunately, it's a bust for the state, creating far fewer jobs than hoped. Similarly, Sound Transit is a black hole sucking money from tax payers and giving little that they didn't already have in return. Boeing and Sound Transit, however, will be unaffected by I‑892, because tribal casino gambling profits is what Eyman is really after:
For years, tribal casinos have had a monopoly on machines, technically called electronic video lottery terminals, because state government has prevented competitors from offering them also. These establishments which are licensed by the Washington State Gambling Commission (minicasinos, some taverns, some bowling alleys, non-profit charity bingos, etc.) have asked the Legislature to allow them to compete with the tribal casinos and their level-playing-field-legislation generates $400 million per year in tax revenue. — Eyman statement at press conference on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, Tim Eyman, Just Treat Us the Same
That all sounds reasonable; unfortunately, they rely on several false and misleading statements.
False and Misleading Statements, and Problems with the Initiative
Eyman and his supporters make and have made several false and misleading statements to justify I‑892, and there are also several problems with the initiative, itself:
- False: Non‑tribal gambling is illegal
- Misleading: 35% will be used to reduce property taxes
- Problem: Most of the profits could go to Canada
- Problem: It will double the number of machines in the state
- False: It won't increase gambling or the number of gamblers
- Problem: The $3 billion cost of lower property taxes
- False: It will create a level playing field
- Misleading: Indians shouldn't get special treatment
- False: Indian treaties should be abrogated and tribes terminated
- Misleading: White people should have the same rights as Indians
- Problem: President Ronald Reagan sided with tribes
- Misleading: New tribes exist just to cash in on casinos
- Misleading: Opponents attack the messenger, not the message
- False: The state is giving land to tribes for casinos
- False: Tribal casinos are more corrupt than non‑tribal casinos
- False: Tribes with casinos are not taking care of their people
- Problem: More than a little bias, if not bigotry behind the attacks
False: Non‑tribal gambling is illegal
When asking people to sign the I‑892 petition, at least some of Eyman's paid signature gatherers were telling people that non‑tribal businesses are not allowed to offer gambling. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, they were lying:
Washington last year had 104 licensed card rooms, including 28 in King County and 11 in Pierce County, according to the Gambling Commission. — Legal gamble: Cities take action to control minicasinos, by George Erb, Puget Sound Business Journal, September 19, 2003
What reason would there be to lie about this? To elicit a knee‑jerk reaction from voters so that they would both sign the petition and vote for the initiative without further examination. That may be the politically expedient thing to do, but it's not the conservative thing to do.
Misleading: 35% will be used to reduce property taxes
I‑892 begins with a very simple proposition:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This measure would reduce state property taxes by allowing licensed non-tribal gambling establishments to offer the same type and number of electronic scratch ticket machines as tribal casinos with tax revenues generated used to reduce state property taxes. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
But how much would actually go toward reducing property taxes? Less than 8.75%
(2) (a) A state excise tax is imposed on the privilege of operating non‑tribal electronic scratch ticket machines. The amount of this tax shall be thirty‑five percent of the net win from the operation of the electronic scratch ticket machines operated by licensed non-tribal gambling establishments. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
Thirty-five percent sounds pretty good, but what's "net win"? Net win is the fine print. First, deduct prizes paid to holders of winning tickets:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1) The payment of prizes to the holders of winning tickets or shares shall not be less than seventy‑five percent of the gross annual revenue from electronic scratch ticket games. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
Assuming the payout to winners is no more than 75%, the house keeps 65% of the 25% that's left over, with the state collecting 35% of the 25%, or 8.75% of the gross annual revenue.
From this amount, the state lottery commission deducts "amounts reasonably necessary to administer" the entire program. After the commission takes their share, 1% of what's left over goes to a contactor administered by DSHS to help problem gamblers, with the remaining 99% going into a special state account. This account, called the "Equal Treatment Equals Lower Property Taxes Account," is what will be used to reduce property taxes in the following year.
In other words, 8.75%, minus the unspecified but "reasonably necessary" amount deducted by the state lottery commission, minus the 1% administered by DSHS, goes to reduce property taxes. How much will that really be? Eyman believes it will be $400 million:
Let me say again: that's $400 million per year in additional tax revenue that the state must turn‑around and give back to the taxpayers by lowering the state property tax levy. — Eyman statement at press conference on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, Tim Eyman, Just Treat Us the Same
To generate $400 million per year in additional tax revenue, Eyman assumes the businesses will rake in close to $4.6 billion per year, of which roughly $740 million will be profit. That's okay, profit is good, although it might be interesting to note that the "profits" from Indian casinos go to provide healthcare, education, housing, community improvements and new economic development. But that's not really relevant to whether we ought to support or oppose I‑892. What is relevant, is that much if not most of the expected profits may end up going to Canada.
Problem: Most of the profits could go to Canada
On June 28, 2004, host Mike Siegel welcomed Tim Eyman to his radio talk show. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
Eyman was very excited about delivering his signed I‑892 petitions to the Secretary of State, but his excitement turned to derision when a caller pointed out that Eyman's biggest supporter was a Canadian company being investigated for loan‑sharking. While Eyman laughed, Siegel snapped, "You're full of it, Dan!" [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] Unfortunately, Siegel doesn't know what he's talking about:
Eyman's disclosure forms show four $25,000 contributions to the expanded gambling initiative, from Rascals Inc. and Evergreen Entertainment Corp. in Seattle, Michaels Development in SeaTac, and Great American Gaming Corp. of Richmond, British Columbia. — Donors to Eyman's latest initiative come as no surprise, by David Ammons, The Associated Press, April 9, 2004, Just Treat Us the Same
Two of Eyman's contributors are owned by Great Canadian Gaming, a Canadian firm:
The donations include $25,000 from Great American Gaming Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Canadian Gaming; $25,000 from Evergreen Entertainment Corp., of which Great American owns 50 percent; and $6,250 each from two Grand Central Casinos operated by Evergreen Entertainment in Lakewood and Tukwila. Great American also operates Great American Casinos in Kent and Everett. — Canadian firm downplays links to I‑892 backers, by Neil Modie, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, June 24, 2004
One of Eyman's critics says that this, by itself, is enough to call I‑892 into question:
David Goldstein, an Eyman critic who once sponsored an initiative to have him formally declared a horse's ass under state law, traced nearly a third of the money behind the initiative to Great Canadian Gaming Corp. of British Columbia.
"Tim is trying to sell this initiative as fair treatment for struggling local businesses, but its biggest backer is really a foreign corporation that will suck profits out of our local communities and send it back north across the border," Goldstein said.
Eyman laughed off the criticism, and joked that Canada is our 51st state:
"It's Canada, our 51st state," Eyman laughed. "Foreign sounds much more xenophobic." — Slot machine plan vexes tribes, by Associated Press, The Daily News, May 5, 2004
There is no question that Tim has a great sense of humor, although Canadians might not appreciate it as much as I do; unfortunately, his backer from the "51st state" really is under investigation for loan‑sharking:
VANCOUVER—A CBC News investigation has uncovered allegations about illegal activities at casinos run by Great Canadian Casinos Inc. in B.C.
Former employees have given sworn statements in the U.S. that loansharks operated on the premises—and that some managers looked the other way.
A U.S. company based in Dallas, Allegiance Capital, had hoped to cash in on a joint investment with Great Canadian—in a floating casino docked off the coast of Hong Kong.
But when the deal went sour over allegations of illegal activity on the ship, including prostitution and profit skimming—the Texas company took Great Canadian to court over the way it operates. — Loansharking alleged at B.C. casinos, CBC News British Columbia, June 25, 2004
Great Canadian Gaming is also investing even more in their Washington state gambling operations:
RICHMOND, B.C. — Great Canadian Gaming Corp., the biggest contributor to a campaign to expand gambling in Washington, is raising its stakes in the state by as much as $5.4 million.
The casino company based in this Vancouver suburb said yesterday its subsidiary, Great American Gaming Corp., which already owns half‑interest in Evergreen Entertainment Corp., will acquire the remaining half‑interest in Evergreen for $350,000 and take over the Grand Central Casinos in Tukwila and Lakewood.
The U.S. subsidiary also plans to acquire the remaining interests in Grand Central properties in Algona, Everett, Tukwila and Tacoma for $1.5 million. — Canadians buy casinos in state, by Associated Press, The Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 8, 2004
Great Canadian is the biggest backer of I‑892, Great Canadian is expanding their gambling operations in Washington state, and they are under criminal investigation in Canada. Together, these facts raise serious questions: could Great Canadian be involved in illegal activities here, too? Is this what we want? A questionable company exporting a huge chunk of the $740 million per year in profits that Eyman expects to result from I‑892?
When a caller to Siegel's show posed this question, Eyman accused him of attacking the messenger. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] Generally, I admire Eyman's work and I respect what he's accomplished, so I don't want to question his motives or speculate about what he knows. He's done too much that is good for the citizens of Washington state. But he simply dodged the issue by turning around and attacking the caller, rather than addressing the issue directly.
Even worse than any criminal activities that his backers may be involved in, however, is the great cost to the citizens of Washington state should I‑892 succeed. It will double the number of electronic slot machines in Washington state, and, contrary to Eyman's protests, that will increase gambling.
Problem: It will double the number of machines in the state
By the time the bill is fully implemented, the number of machines will double, because I‑892 requires that the number of non‑tribal machines will equal whatever number of machines the tribes have:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (continued) The total number of electronic scratch ticket machines would be capped and would not exceed the total allowed for tribal casinos. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that tribal casinos have 100,000 machines, then that would mean that 100,000 more machines, under this law, would start popping up in bowling alleys, restaurants, taverns, horse racing tracks and card rooms. With machines everywhere, common sense tells us that the amount of gambling will increase. But Eyman calls that "stupid."
False: It won't increase gambling or the number of gamblers
The first person I heard argue that I‑892 would encourage and increase gambling, was Michael Medved, a Republican, conservative talk show host and a man whom I respect as a mentor. What he said wasn't stupid. It's just common sense. But Tim Eyman says that people who say this will increase gambling and the number of people who gamble are stupid. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] He's wrong.
Most people won't go out of their way to gamble. That's why state lottery tickets are sold at local grocery stores and convenience stores, where it's convenient. Because, for most us, gambling is impulsive rather than compulsive, and if it's not easy, we won't do it. But I‑892 will make it easy, by putting electronic slot machines in more and more locations, like bowling alleys, taverns and restaurants, where people who wouldn't go to a casino will "play the slots."
So, to say it will increase the number of people who gamble isn't stupid, but obvious, which is why King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng is worried:
"Initiative 892 would legalize a massive expansion of gambling—thousands of video slot machines—and bring gambling into our neighborhood restaurants and bowling alleys," [King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng,] said in a statement released by the No on I‑892 campaign. "We have enough gambling today." — Tribes mount effort against I‑892, by Brad Shannon, The Olympian, June 29, 2004
If I‑892 passes, there is already a plan in place for rural restaurants, taverns and bowling alleys to pool their licenses. In fact, the initiative already provides for this:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. (5) Electronic scratch ticket licensees may lease their allotted machines to other licensees and may also revenue-share with persons or entities, including route operators, distributors, and manufacturers licensed by the lottery commission to engage in such activity. Licensees' lease of allotted machines or contracts with a route operator, distributor, or manufacturer must be in writing, signed by the parties, and submitted to the lottery commission before the installation of player terminals. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
Rural businesses will keep a few machines, but lease the rest of their allotment to businesses located in the major metropolitan areas along the I‑5 and I‑90 corridors. However, in anticipation of those locations quickly bumping up against the maximum number of machines allowed, they will immediately begin lobbying to increase the number of machines allowed. In this way, gambling will spread, and the number of gamblers will increase with the increased availability and convenience.
The question voters need to ask is, will it be worth the cost? I‑892 may increase the amount of gambling and the number of people who gamble, but won't lowering property taxes be worth it?
Problem: The $3 billion cost of lower property taxes
Eyman says that I‑892 will lower property taxes. He's right. If his bill is voted into law, it almost certainly will lower taxes, at least at first. By how much we don't know, because we don't know how much money the state lottery commission will decide is "reasonably necessary to administer" the program. But, unless the state and municipal governments come up with new and clever ways to increase our property taxes, it will probably do what Eyman says.
The question is, will it be worth it? Will lower property taxes justify the social costs that come with increased gambling? Problem gambling can be devastating to families and costly to communities, a fact acknowledged by Eyman, whose bill allocates 1% of the excise tax to a program administered by DSHS to deal with problem gambling:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (3) The money in the Electronic Scratch Ticket Account shall be expended as follows:
(c) One percent of the amount remaining after administrative expenses in (a) of this subsection shall be dedicated exclusively for distribution to a contractor under section 11 (3) of this act subject to appropriation.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. (3) Pursuant to chapter 43.20A RCW, the department of social and health services shall contract with a nonprofit entity incorporated in Washington state dedicated to the provision of public awareness, education, prevention, helpline services, treatment, professional training, counselor certification, research, and other services necessary to address problem gambling in Washington to implement a program that addresses problem gambling. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
Eyman anticipates that the excise tax will generate $400 million, and he would allocate one percent of that, or $4 million, to deal with problem gambling. Will that be enough? Probably not, because according to the Washington State Council on Problem Gambling, it's already a $3 billion problem in Washington state:
A congressional commission found that Problem and Pathological Gamblers cost society up to $10,550 each. … Research shows that Washington State has up to 270,000 Adult Problem and Pathological Gamblers and up to 44,000 teens with gambling problems. — Washington State Council on Problem Gambling, Gary Hanson, Problem Gambling Treatment Program Ends, August 12, 2003
That's a rough estimate based on the limited amount of gambling that is available right now. The problems associated with tribal casinos are contained, to a certain degree, because tribal casinos are restricted to specific locations and are very heavily regulated. But I‑892 will let the genie out of the bottle.
How much worse will it get when electronic slot machines are available in every tavern, restaurant and bowling alley? A lot worse. Will it reduce most citizens in our state to poverty? Of course not, but it could easily lower the regional standard of living. Is that what Eyman means when it says it will result in a "more level playing field"? No, but to some extent that could be the result.
False: It will create a level playing field
One of the main purposes on the Just Treat Us the Same Bill, is to create a level playing field:
The intent of this measure is to create a more level playing field and more competition and for state property tax levies to be reduced as a result. — Just Treat Us the Same I‑892
What does he mean by a "level playing field"?
Just Treat Us The Same promotes a principle universally embraced by the citizens of Washington—equal treatment under law…with Just Treat Us The Same, voters are being given the opportunity to endorse the principle of equal treatment with regard to tribal casinos and their competitors. — Eyman statement at press conference on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, Tim Eyman, Just Treat Us the Same
The argument that everybody should compete on a "level playing field" is inherently appealing to Americans. We believe in equal rights and responsibilities. Shouldn't this apply to Indian gaming, too? It's easy to believe the answer would be "yes," but many flaws with that reasoning stem from the relationship of tribes to the federal government. Others arise from the impact this would have on our society. But the main problem is that it doesn't work. Instead of creating a level playing field, it increases the amount of gambling:
The idea that one form of gambling should not have an unfair advantage over its competitors has been a driving force behind the proliferation of legal gaming. Liberalizing the rules for one operator is like trying to fix a wobbly table by shortening one leg, without measuring the other three legs; then shortening another leg; then another and another. — The Myth Of The Level Playing Field, by I. Nelson Rose, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School, 1999
The consequence of all this leg‑shortening, as Rose describes it, is a cycle in which, to remain competitive and maintain a "level playing field," concessions are demanded by and made to first one party, and then the other. Why? Because the playing field is inherently unequal. For one example, while restaurants, bowling alleys and card rooms can be located just about anywhere, tribal gaming is restricted to particular locations:
Many reservations in Washington, as throughout the country, are located in remote locations. Allowing privately owned clubs in the middle of cities to offer the exact same game, banking blackjack, as these tribes' casinos was not a level playing field for them. Patrons would not drive three extra hours and use a ferry crossing just to make the same bet they could make with a ten‑minute drive. — The Myth Of The Level Playing Field, by I. Nelson Rose, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School, 1999
Tribes got electronic scratch ticket machines to "level the playing field." Now, with I‑892, non‑tribal gambling operators hope to get electronic slot machines, too, to "level the playing field." What's next? Internet gaming:
Tribes in New Mexico have already anticipated the next stage. When clubhouses and tracks in cities have slots, who is going to drive hours into the desert? One way for especially remote tribes to bring back the level playing field is to eliminate the need for the trip at all.
Tribal leaders have testified before Congress that they need proxy play, by telephone and computer, or they cannot get enough patrons to stay in business. — The Myth Of The Level Playing Field, by I. Nelson Rose, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School, 1999
Okay, the whole "equal playing field" thing is really a myth, there is no such thing, it'll never happen, but Indians still shouldn't get special treatment anyway, should they?
Misleading: Indians shouldn't get special treatment
Part of the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, is that many people have the mistaken idea that Indian Law is about giving Indians "special treatment" to make up for past wrongs:
If Indians want to reap multi‑million‑dollar profits from casino gambling, they should be required to shed their legal status as societal victims and compete on a level playing field. — Gambling Off the Reservation, by Michelle Malkin, Capitalism Magazine, January 9, 2001
Malkin makes a powerful point, but like most people, including a lot of Indians, she's confused: Indian rights have nothing to do with being victims, centuries of oppression at the hands of "evil white guys," liberal stereotypes of what Indians are and ought to be, dammed rivers, violation of sacred sites, broken treaties, the impact of starlings on native bird populations, or the feminist emasculation of America. It's about the Constitution, it's about contract law, and it's about property rights.
Most Indian tribes were not conquered. Most of the fighting in the movies centers around the Plains Indians. Most Indians didn't live on the Plains. My tribe, for example, lived in southwestern Washington, an area distinguished by 3 major rivers—the Columbia, the Cowlitz and the Lewis—the Cascade Mountain Range, lush forests and vast rolling meadows, which, as western Washington state's first horse‑riding tribe, we created and maintained for agriculture.
We were never conquered. Indeed, during the Indian wars the Cowlitz were allies and fought alongside the U.S. Army, while our families stayed at Fort Vancouver.
Pioneers moved in, intermarried, and here we are, having never relinquished either our property rights or culture, our tribal ties or our ties to the land. We have always been here. Under the Constitution and law of the land, we have certain retained rights, because this land really is our land.
Most of these rights derive from the relationship between tribes and the federal government. In most cases, individual Indians have no rights that are different from anybody else. For example, I am a citizen of Washington state, and with few exceptions I must abide by all the laws that apply to other citizens. As an Indian, I may possess eagle feathers—which are illegal for non‑Indians to have—because they are traditional sacred symbols which we use to, among other things, send our prayers up to God. In certain cases, I can be exempt from paying the state sales tax, although the hassle is usually not worth it. Members of some tribes here in the northwest—those who are covered by the 1974 Boldt Decision—were determined to have a treaty right to half the fish harvest. But most tribes here were not a part of that. We do, however, have certain rights to sustenance hunting, fishing and gathering.
Along with these rights come responsibilities. Like most tribes, my tribe has a natural resources department, which is responsible for, among other things, enforcing on our own members our very strict hunting and fishing laws. For decades, we have also been active in issues affecting the rivers and forests in our territory. It's not like Indians just sit around having lots of special rights and no responsibilities, stereotypes to the contrary notwithstanding. And in any case, these rights derive, not from any imagined "legal status as societal victims," but property rights and contract law, based on the Constitution of the United States.
Okay, so it's not about being victims. But do retained rights justify having a government‑enforced monopoly? Common sense and Tim Eyman tell us they do not:
Government‑protected monopolies are divisive, discriminatory, and just plain bad public policy. — Eyman statement at press conference on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, Tim Eyman, Just Treat Us the Same
He makes a good point, but generally, conservatives don't reject all monopolies as bad. In fact, we expect them to occur because, while equal treatment under the law is very important and should be the rule, there are many cases in which monopolies do and ought to exist:
In dynamic technology markets such as Internet broadband, monopolies are inevitable, virtuous and fleeting. Every innovation creates a monopoly at the outset, and monopoly rents pay for financial risks and costs entailed in bringing innovation to market. — Tumbling Into the Telechasm, by George Gilder, originally published in the Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2001
Here, Gilder, a very well‑known conservative commentator and pro‑capitalism advocate, was writing of technological innovation and emerging markets, but the point is that monopolies are not always, as Eyman argues, "just plain bad public policy." Sometimes, a monopoly is okay.
Does that mean American Indians should get "special treatment"? No. But American Indians do occupy a unique position in that, as the indigenous people of this land, each federally recognized tribe has a government‑to‑government relationship with the federal government.
So what? All that was a long, long time ago. Isn't it time to abrogate all those old Indian treaties, terminate federal recognition of Indian tribes, and move on?
False: Indian treaties should be abrogated and tribes terminated
A lot of Americans agree with the sentiment one caller expressed on the June 28, 2004, Mike Siegel Show, when he said this is the 21st century and it's time to abrogate the treaties and move on. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] After all, millions of people were born in America, that makes them "native," so what's the deal?
Most American Indians agree with the part about being native. A "Native American" is a person who was born an American. Doesn't have anything to do with being a member of an Indian tribe.
With respect to abrogating treaties and terminating tribes, however, there's just one problem that has nothing to do with long‑winded arguments about social justice, or esoteric justifications based on inheritance rights: To do so you have to change the Constitution of the United States. Not a simple amendment, but surgery to remove part of the original Constitution. More about that in the next section.
Misleading: White people should have the same rights as Indians
On his June 28, 2004, show, Mike Siegel said it's not fair for Indian tribes to have the sole franchise on Class III Gaming:
The issue, sir, is that the tribes have discrimination in their favor; white people have a right to do the same things as the tribes do, which is to have a slot machine, and that's what this initiative will do! — Mike Siegel, July 2, 2004 [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
Regardless of why he specifically used the term "white people" rather than some more generic phrase, his statement was like saying that everybody has the same rights as the Bill Gates family. He's right, but that doesn't mean everybody has a right to Bill Gates' fortune, or to Gates' shares of Microsoft stock.
Not that Indians are rich. To the contrary, most American Indians are very poor, kept locked in poverty by historical conditions, left‑wing policies and right‑wing prejudices—liberal programs that foster dependency and conservative resistance to anything that smacks of special privileges—so the analogy isn't perfect. But it serves to demonstrate that having the same rights doesn't mean we have the right to the same things, or that we can all exercise the same rights.
In America, we all have the same Constitutional rights. All our rights are based on the Constitution. That includes American Indians, for whom the Constitution of the United States specifically reserves regulation of Indian commerce to the federal government:
The Congress shall have Power To…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; — U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
So the argument that American Indians ought not to have things like tribal gaming because "white people have a right to do that same things as the tribes do" is ignorant of the Constitution, as well as Title 25 of the US Code and Code of Federal Regulations, which, together, are just the beginning of the extremely complex set of laws and regulations that, in addition to all the other laws that govern us as American citizens, govern American Indians.
Moreover, the intention behind Siegel's statement stands toe‑to‑toe in opposition to policies endorsed and encouraged by a man of no less stature than President Ronald Reagan.
Problem: President Ronald Reagan sided with tribes
Some people, like Mike Siegel, believe that the justification for exempting tribal casinos from state and local taxation is to make up "for the way they were treated for a couple of centuries," as Siegel put it. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] But that's not true.
Nor is it very much about tribal sovereignty, as others contend. What President Reagan had in mind when he approved American Indian gaming was far more conservative than that: to reduce poverty in Indian country and increase the self‑sufficiency of American Indians.
Reagan understood that the existence, recognition of and dealing with Indian tribes has nothing to do with white rights, but that it is a Constitutional consideration of the conditions upon which the foundation of this nation is built; hence, treaties with Indian tribes are not the same as treaties written today.
Treaties that are made today reflect national policy, which can change. That is very different from Indian treaties, which have nothing to do with national policy and everything to do with the creation of this nation. To abrogate those treaties, and to terminate recognition of Indian tribes, is to repudiate the foundation upon which this nation is built. You may as well throw away the Constitution.
Understanding this, Reagan believed that Indian tribes should be treated similar to state governments:
In a very real sense, Reagan's vision was consistent with Chief Justice John Marshall's view of Indian tribes as "domestic, dependent nations." Prior to the 1980s, tribes were made more dependent than ever by federal policy while being robbed of any measure of the sovereignty crucial to national identity. Reagan wanted to craft a federal-Indian relationship in which the tribes would be treated much the same way as state governments. — Unleashing the Spirit: The Reagan Administration's Indian Policy, by Jason Manning, The Eighties Club: The Ronald Reagan Resource, 2001
Reagan's view was based on his profound understanding of history, which he saw through the lens of time and tradition, and the immortal values upon which our nation is based. He understood, as few do, that the Indian tribes are an essential part of this nation: We are the eighth pillar upon which it is built. As such, to repudiate us would be to repudiate America, and that, Reagan would not do. So he applied his conservative principles to revitalize this vital part of America's past, so that we would no longer be a burden to the present, but a valuable asset to the future.
No easy task, considering all the baggage with which Indian country is burdened.
The history of Indian tribes and the law is long and tortured, it doesn't make sense to most Americans—heck, it doesn't make very much sense to most Indians, either—but it's based on the Constitution, wrapped up in hundreds of thousands of pages of case law, and codified in Title 25 of the US Code and Code of Federal Regulations.
Beginning some‑500 years ago—and ending in the life time of elders I knew, loved and revered well into my adulthood—lives, lands and livelihoods were stolen, overlooked, shoved aside, expropriated, and squatted upon. "Woe is me, woe is me, victims we all be." Not! This is the reality in which we live, and most of us got over it a long time ago, because with the bad comes the good: Just as Bill Gates has the right to pass on an inheritance that will make generations of his heirs de facto American aristocrats, so American Indians inherit a relationship with the federal government that is different and unique from every other American.
Be that as it may, American Indians are still disproportionately represented in all the bad numbers: poverty, sickness, diabetes and disease, teen pregnancy, lack of prenatal care and early death.
The liberal solution to such problems is to throw money and hope it goes away. That's what the federal government did for decades, and it didn't work. What does work is self‑sufficiency: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." That's what Reagan was thinking when he signed the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act:
While acknowledging the federal government's responsibility to the tribes, Reagan's intentions were clear: To get government off the backs of the Indians while freeing the taxpayer from some of the financial burden of supporting the reservations. … Reagan later signed the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which established an oversight commission and required tribes and states to enter into compacts for the operation of casinos, horse racing and lotteries. … Reagan was betting that the states would find no justification for shutting down most Indian gambling operations, and he was right. — Unleashing the Spirit: The Reagan Administration's Indian Policy, by Jason Manning, The Eighties Club: The Ronald Reagan Resource, 2001
President Reagan knew what he was doing. To turn generations of dependence into independence might take generations, but in this case leading indicators of improvements‑to‑come were soon evident:
Generally, though, did Reagan's new policy benefit American Indians as a whole? Between 1987 and 1992, Indian-owned businesses increased by 93%, numbering 102,234 by 1992. In comparison, the number of non-Indian businesses in the U.S. grew by 26% during the same period. — Unleashing the Spirit: The Reagan Administration's Indian Policy, by Jason Manning, The Eighties Club: The Ronald Reagan Resource, 2001
After generations of efforts to exterminate indigenous Americans, followed by decades of liberal programs, however, it was impossible to change everything for the better in just a few years:
Other statistics tell a more sober story in terms of how American Indians fared in the 1980s. Despite some progress, Indians remained the poorest group in society. While the income of white Americans increased by 12%, and black Americans by 8%, American Indian income remained relatively unchanged between 1979 and 1989. Therefore, the income gap between white and Indian households widened from 37% in 1979 to 54% ten years later. The BIA estimated Indian unemployment at 45%, even though the unemployment rate for Indian males dropped by about 5% between 1980 and 1990. Close to 30% of American Indians remained below the poverty line in 1989. — Unleashing the Spirit: The Reagan Administration's Indian Policy, by Jason Manning, The Eighties Club: The Ronald Reagan Resource, 2001
During the 1990s, however, conditions did begin to show marked improvement in Indian country, due largely to Reagan's policies. Of course, liberals claim Clinton was responsible for this, just as they claim Clinton was responsible for the booming economy—which I argue Clinton policies not only did not cause but actually killed—but as with so much of what Clinton did right, it resulted primarily from the fact that his administration was unable to mess with the success of Reagan's policies because they were hamstrung by Clinton's scandals and deadlocked by the conservative Congress.
Ironically, some conservatives discount the success of Reagan's policies toward Indian country by attributing the improved statistical trends to non‑Indians fraudulently claiming to be Indians in order to cash in on casinos.
Misleading: New tribes exist just to cash in on casinos
During the past 20 years, the American Indian population has increased markedly, particularly since 1990:
Between 1990 and 2000, the AIAN [American Indian/Alaska Native] population increased faster than the total U.S. population. The AIAN population grew between 26 and 110 percent from 1990 to 2000. (Depending on whether the AIAN‑only or the total AIAN population is used to compare with the 1990 population of 2.0 million, different population growth rates will be found.) In comparison, the total U.S. population grew by 13 percent over the decade. — Executive Summary: American Indians and Alaska Natives: A Demographic Perspective, by Becca Jones, Population Resource Center, July 2003
In one of his latest books, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite conservative authors, attributes this to fraudulent efforts to cash in on tribal casinos:
In the United States, Sowell observes, more people are saying they belong to a different ethnic group, so they might qualify for preferential treatment. For instance, "The number of American Indians who were aged 15‑19 in 1960 was just under 50,000. But, twenty years later, when these same individuals would be in the age bracket 35‑39 years old, there were more than 80,000 American Indians in that cohort. In other words, more than 30,000 people in the same cohort who had not designated themselves as American Indians in 1960 now did so in 1980, causing more than a 60 percent increase in the number of American Indians in that cohort." — LFB Books Book Review, Laissez Faire Books
In April 2004, during an interview with Dr. Walter Williams, who was guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show, Dr. Sowell attributed this increase to an influx of people attempting to cash in on Indian casinos. Unfortunately, Dr. Sowell ignores certain factors that are well known to Indians.
First: Being counted as an American Indian in the U.S. Census is not the same thing as being a member of a federally recognized tribe, let alone a tribe with a casino. My tribe, for example, was the first tribe to be ratified as federally recognized under the Bush Administration, yet I and my family members have always been counted in the Census as American Indians. That didn't qualify us for preferential treatment, we got nothing—unless you count being beaten by our peers, ignored by our teachers, and stereotyped as incompetent by liberals with "good intentions"—yet we were counted as being American Indian.
Second: The official count of the American Indian population is artificially low, even today. For a very long time many American Indians were taught to repudiate their race. In the 1950s many whose blood quantum was half, three‑quarters or even more, chose to pass themselves off as white, black or Asian to avoid the stigma attached to being Indian. By the mid‑seventies, however, this began to change as a growing number of young Indians came out of the closet to reclaim their race. Statistically, this is supported by the fact that the official count of the American Indian population is relatively young compared to other groups:
American Indians and Alaska Natives are younger than the general population. In 2000, almost 34 percent of the AIAN population was under the age of 18, while only six percent was age 65 and older. In comparison, 26 percent of the total U.S. population was under age 18 and 12 percent was age 65 and older. The median age for the AIAN-only population was 28.0 years in 2000, seven years less than the median for the United States as a whole (35.3 years). — Executive Summary: American Indians and Alaska Natives: A Demographic Perspective, by Becca Jones, Population Resource Center, July 2003
Despite this, I know Indians whose blood quantum is one‑quarter or higher yet they do not belong to a federally recognized tribe and do not claim to be American Indian on the U.S. Census. Why? Because, thanks to termination efforts that persisted well into the 1960s, they are disenfranchised by termination‑era enrollment policies, or because they have simply lost all connection to their tribe. So, the real population of American Indians is actually higher than the number about which Sowell complains.
Third: It's incredibly difficult to gain federal recognition as a tribe. The process is rigorous, and the time table is counted in decades rather than years:
Under the Department's regulations, in order to meet this standard petitioning groups must demonstrate that they meet each of seven mandatory criteria. The petitioner must:
- demonstrate that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900;
- show that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present;
- demonstrate that it has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present;
- provide a copy of the group's present governing document including its membership criteria;
- demonstrate that its membership consists of individuals who descend from the historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity and provide a current membership list;
- show that the membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe; and
- demonstrate that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship.
A criterion is considered met if the available evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to that criterion. — The Federal Acknowledgment Process, Testimony of Theresa Rosier Counselor to the Assistant Secretary ‑ Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior at the Hearing Before the Committee on government Reform U.S. House of Representatives on the Federal Acknowledgment Process, May 5, 2004
So this is not something a group of casino‑owner wannabes can simply waltz in and do in a land‑rush to get undeserved riches.
Finally: The improved vital statistics for Indian country can be attributed in large measure to Reagan's policies. Although the negatives are still relatively high, improvements in health and longevity, education and economy really began to improve thanks to Reagan. With the economic development opportunities he made possible, they will continue to improve. Unless efforts such as I‑892 reverse those trends.
Unfortunately, where I‑892 is concerned, Eyman seems to take criticism personally, accusing opponents of attacking the messenger, not the message.
Misleading: Opponents attack the messenger, not the message
When a caller to Mike Siegel's June 28, 2004, show, pointed out that Eyman's biggest supporter was being investigated for loan‑sharking, Eyman retorted, "attack the messenger all you want," and then called the caller "pathetic." [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
As I proved above, the caller was correct. Is it possible that Eyman didn't know that? Yes, and I would prefer to believe that is the case, because if he does know that Great Canadian is under investigation, the implications are disturbing. Almost as disturbing as the lies that Mike Siegel is spreading about my tribe.
False: The state is giving land to tribes for casinos
During his June 28th show, Siegel twice said that the state is giving land to my tribe for a casino. In both instances, he was speaking about a one‑acre parcel in Snohomish county that the state is returning to the Suquamish tribe, and in that context he described the purchase, by my tribe, of a parcel of land near La Center as being the same:
There is a piece of land in La Center near Vancouver (Washington) where they're (the state) turn (sic) that over to the tribes to build a casino…they're building a casino there as well, which is giving unequal treatment to the non‑tribal casinos because they cannot have the slot machines under state law even though the tribes can under federal law, what do you make of that? — Mike Siegel, June 28, 2004 [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
Later, after his conversation was Tim Eyman was over, he welcomed Bob Williams, of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf] Then Siegel enticed Mr. Williams to agree that the state is, in fact, giving land to my tribe:
Siegel: "There's this little park that's one‑acre big that the state wants to turn over to the tribes, uh, to the Suquamish tribe, specifically…and by the way, they did the same thing, I think, with some land in La Center, where they're building a tribal casino, right?"
Williams: "The La Center people have talked to me, I mean, that one, again, it, what's happening is the state—I hope people wake up!—because, what they're doing is taking land off the tax rolls, giving it to the tribe, and then the tribe is applying to the feds for trust land, which means then they'll be able to open a casino." — Mike Siegel, June 28, 2004 [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
The lie they are spreading—unwittingly, perhaps—is that the state is giving us that land. We are buying it.
That those who directly oppose my tribe would allege otherwise is understandable, though despicable. But it's a matter of public record that we are buying the land, and our opponents have even complained publicly about how much money we are spending to acquire the property. So why Siegel is spreading such a lie is a mystery. Nor is this the only unfounded allegation made on his show.
False: Tribal casinos are more corrupt than non‑tribal casinos
One observation Tim Eyman made is that Washington state heavily regulates local businesses. He's right. But he was wrong when he alleged that tribal casinos are lightly regulated. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
Tribal casinos are very heavily regulated and policed:
Indian gaming is already subject to more stringent regulation and security controls than any other type of gaming in the United States.
Tribal gaming operations are regulated at three distinct levels:
- the government of the Indian Nations (Indian Gaming Regulatory Commissions)
- state government
- the National Indian Gaming Commission and federal government agencies such as the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of the Interior
Agencies with oversight relationships to gaming including the FBI, the IRS, the U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshalls, Attorneys General, Secret Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. — Tribes lead in the stringent regulation of Indian Gaming, Regulation of Indian Gaming, National Indian Gaming Association, 2003
The resources dedicated to this are enormous:
The National Indian Gaming Association maintains that tribal governments invested more than $200 million in regulating their gaming operations in 2003, on top of providing $50 million to states for oversight purposes and $9 million to the National Indian Gaming Commission. …
By virtue of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which extends federal criminal jurisdiction over acts related directly to Indian casino establishments, the FBI through its Indian Country/Special Jurisdiction Unit oversees the Indian Gaming Working Group. … Other participants are the Department of Interior Office of the Inspector General, the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Tribal Government Section of the IRS, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Center, the U.S. Department of Justice and the BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services, as well as tribal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies. — FBI watchdog group galvanizes to protect tribal casinos, by Jerry Reynolds, Washington D.C. correspondent, Indian Country Today, July 2, 2004
More information about this can be found at the Native Gaming Resources site.
Tribes are working hard to keep corruption out of tribal gaming. But how is the money being spent? Is it going to enrich just a few people?
False: Tribes with casinos are not taking care of their people
One difference between tribal and non‑tribal gaming, is that revenues from tribal gaming go to provide healthcare, housing, education and other vital services to tribal members, as well as to fund development of other tribal enterprises, while non‑tribal gaming has one purpose: profit for investors. In this respect, proceeds from tribal casinos are taxed at the rate of 100 percent.
Despite this, Siegel suggested that tribes with casinos are enriching a few:
If there's unemployment, the tribes are making a ton of money, maybe they're not taking care of their own people! — Mike Siegel, June 28, 2004 [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
Even today, unemployment among American Indians runs in excess of 40%, but among tribes with casinos, it's much less and their people are, in most cases, being taken care of. Where the problems exist, they are primarily with tribes which do not have casinos or any other viable means of inducing economic development.
Most Americans tend to lump all Indians together with respect to "special rights," having a casino, paying no taxes, living on reservations, etc. But there are more than 500 recognized tribes, we are not all one homogenous mass, most of us do not and never did have a socialist tradition, and to say that the high rate of unemployment is due to tribes "not taking care of their own people" is to stereotype us as both socialists and one homogenous group.
To do so is wrong and smacks of bigotry, as did the way in which Siegel treated his callers.
Problem: More than a little bias, if not bigotry behind the attacks
Mike Siegel, who strongly favors I‑892, treats callers very differently depending upon whether they are for or against tribal rights. When one caller—"Dan from Shoreline"— sided against I‑892, Siegel accused him of being a lobbyist for Indian casinos. [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
As it happens, I know Dan, and he's not a lobbyist. The point he made very well, in my opinion, was that if non‑Indian venues got electronic slot machines, then the only way to assure a "level playing field" would be to allow tribal casinos to set up anywhere, because right now tribal casinos are required to be located in or very near their reservations.
As Dan put it, people aren't going to "drive past 10 mini‑casinos with slots now to go to a tribal casino." To demonstrate his point, Dan said, "If you let the Indians build a casino in Shoreline so we could truly have fair competition, then I would…," at which point Siegel interrupted to accuse him of being a lobbyist.
A few days later, however, when he took a call from a woman who is an anti‑Indian lobbyist—Elaine Willman, Chairman of Citizen Equal Rights Alliance (CERA)—he never questioned her point of view, never accused her of being a lobbyist, but welcomed her comments on the issue of the state returning an acre of land in Snohomish county to the Suquamish tribe:
Willman: My specific point on Old Man House Park, is that it has been a state park available to the Suquamish tribe for all this time—over 50 years that it has been a state park—and if the land is so very sacred to the Suquamish, my question is, why have they never, ever incorporated that space in their cultural traditions, or ceremonies or annual events, why have they never, ever bothered to visit the site all these years, but suddenly it is sacred and they want it? I believe the answer is political spot‑zoning. …
Siegel: All right, I appreciate it very much, uh, said a lot, there." — Mike Siegel, July 2, 2004 [Click here for mp3, or Click here for dvf]
The answer to Willman's question was simply that she was wrong, the Suquamish have long used the park, and there's nothing sudden about their interest in it. Regardless, Siegel never questioned her, but uncritically allowed her to speak almost uninterrupted for two‑and‑a‑half minutes. And she's a lobbyist! Why the different treatment?
The obvious aside—that "Dan from Shoreline" disagreed with him while "Elaine from Yakima" agreed with him—what could explain the difference? Anti‑Indian bigotry.
As it happens, although I prefer the civil discourse of Kirby Wilbur, who's show airs at the same time as Mike Siegel's show, reception of Kirby's station, KVI, is awful where my desk at work is located. So I usually listen to Siegel. I don't always agree with him, but I have learned from him and, until the past few weeks, I respected him. Unfortunately, he has, in my view, exposed an anti‑Indian bias in his attitudes. Fortunately, such attitudes can change.
Gaming: Not a long‑term solution
Gambling is not a long‑term solution. Not for tribes, and not for Washington state. Indian tribes know this. Casinos are providing a lot of money to some tribes, but the flow of money won't last forever. That's why they are scrambling to find new opportunities for economic development.
This is exactly what Reagan hoped Indian tribes would do. He hoped we would recognize that this was "a hand up, not a hand out," as the saying goes, and that we would take the next step.
What Reagan could not have anticipated, was that the states would be tempted to increase their tax base through gaming, or that fellow‑conservatives, like Tim Eyman, would lead such efforts.
If America's Indians know that gambling is not a panacea for all their financial problems, and that it does not provide a long‑term solution for Indian country, then surely the rest of America's people must recognize this for themselves, too.
I‑892 is a bad idea. It's a short‑term solution that, in the long run, will bring gambling into local neighborhoods, increase the amount of gambling, encourage more people to gamble, and ultimately enrich a relative few.
| 
by