GOP 'Pledge' would strike hard in Indian Country

The all-important value seems to be to reduce taxes, so perhaps this Pledge to America is made with the thought that it would be fine to break more-lasting pledges to Native Americans.

House Republican Leader John Boehner

Courtesy of Boehner's congressional web site

House Republican Leader John Boehner

We hate health care reform. The bill was too many pages, too complicated and didn’t fix all the problems right now, this minute. (One of America’s core democratic values is our impatience.)

But the why is fascinating. Many of us hate the reform bill because it went too far; but most of us are unhappy because health care reform didn’t go far enough. We wanted more action, a smarter health care system, even, more government to make our health care system work smarter.

Yet that voter angst — both for and against — set the stage for this November election and the Republicans’ Pledge to America. “In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent,” the pledge says. (Except that some of us do give our consent.)

Elections are policy choices. And this GOP Pledge is a clear guide about what Republicans would do if given power. There are significant implications for Indian Country in this document (even though American Indians and Alaska Natives aren’t mentioned at all).

The Pledge says: “Because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, and increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law.”

But if that were to happen it would mean the repeal of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That law was just made permanent after nearly a decade of congressional inaction to reauthorize the 1976 act. This act was both symbolic and practical, setting the course for many improvements in the Indian health system ranging from improved funding to better training and recruitment.

Of course it won’t be easy to repeal the health care bill. The bar is set high: Republicans would have to round up enough votes to beat a presidential veto, a two-thirds majority. So the Pledge outlines a back up plan: “We will fight efforts to fund the costly new health care law.”

The Pledge promises to return federal spending to 2008 levels. The Indian Health Service budget was $3.35 billion that year; in fiscal year 2011 the president is requesting $4.4 billion. That’s nearly a 24 percent cut in existing services at IHS. (That does not include the additional money spent from the stimulus funds that would also be eliminated.)

The problem is these look like big numbers: Four point four billion dollars! But it’s not news to Indian Country to report that the Indian Health Service is already underfunded. We’re talking about an agency that spends less per patient than any other health care system in America, including federal prisons.

The Pledge to America would roll back all government spending to 2008 levels in education, at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and that would impact tribal contracts for those same programs. As National Congress of American Indians President Jefferson Keel said in March: “In every area of the federal budget, Indian programs receive less per capita than for the rest of the nation.” That will be even more so if these cuts come to pass.

This is what the Pledge to America looks like in Indian Country: Deep spending cuts; layoffs for federal and tribal employees working through federal contracts; and, if there’s no consensus from the Democrats in Congress, the potential of another government shut down.

Perhaps Indian Country is considered a necessary sacrifice because tax cuts are the all-important measure of good government. Yet federal taxes are less than 15 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, the lowest share since 1950. But that tax cut pledge is paramount, right?

Then again the word “pledge” out to be of particular interest to Indian Country. Like it or not the United States made pledges to Indian Country, such as the one to provide health care.

But it’s a pledge that is easily dismissed by Republicans so eager to curb the power of the state. Some promises matter more than others.


About the Author

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. You can reach him through www.marktrahant.com. He is the author of "The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars," the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Sep 27, 12:09 p.m. Inappropriate

What I don't like about the health care act is that it treats citizens differently based on their race. Indians are exempt from the burden everyone else must live under: to purchase insurance or face a fine. If it doesn't treat everyone equally, it should be scrapped.

BlueLight

Posted Mon, Sep 27, 2:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Wow !
What a stretch !
Making existing policies race and patron neutral is targeting "Indians" ? You may want to follow the logic of that. It should lead to you the conclusion that most of the Demo-only legislation has been feeding the pockets of their public patrons. Therefore ...... your "Indians" (aka Native Americans, Aboriginal Americans, Original Undocumented Americans, and sometimes ..... just Old Hippies) may suffer cutbacks. I agree with you. I would hope the bigger Demo-patrones would suffer much much more, but my guess is that they have the juice to tip the trough away from their "little brothers and sisters" and assure many more decades of the Leeching of America (Loa/Lwa, LOA; Left Occipito Anterior).
Good Luck.

Jamesa

Posted Tue, Sep 28, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate

Breaking promises to Native peoples is as American as apple pie, a great and hallowed tradition. It's about time that this venerable historical practice was restored to its rightful place in the God-ordained social order.

woofer

Posted Tue, Sep 28, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate

Woofer,

Here is a link to the Treaty of Point Elliot. http://www.goia.wa.gov/Treaties/Treaties/pointelliot.htm

Which provisions of that treaty have been broken?

BlueLight

Posted Tue, Sep 28, 2:18 p.m. Inappropriate

Ah, a BlueLight special on today's menu. A savory zinger! Let's start with US v. Washington (aka, the Boldt decision), an obscure case that began way back in the 70s and continues in various forms even today. The original Boldt decision held that the State of Washington was systematically violating the provisions of the Treaty of Point Elliot (and the Point No Point and Medicine Creek Treaties as well) which guarantee to Washington tribes the right to take salmon at their "usual and accustomed" fishing grounds.

The treaty fishing rights decision was appealed by the state all the way up to the US Supreme Court; the tribes were upheld at every level. And here is an interesting kicker: Boldt himself was a conservative Republican judge appointed to the federal bench by a conservative Republican president. How about that?

woofer

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »