Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Carol Poole and Paul Urla some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Indian Country can help pull states out of their fiscal holes

Tribal enterprises are pumping money into local economies, and there's an opportunity to save money by rethinking Medicaid rules.

Mark Trahant

Mark Trahant

State and local governments are in deep financial holes. State budgets are smaller by some 14 percent, and there are fewer employees Fortunately, budget deficits have been steadily getting smaller. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says 24 states are predicting shortfalls of $46 billion for fiscal year 2013, down from $191 billion in fiscal year 2010.

The federal stimulus money is gone.  “So even though significant budget gaps remain in 2012, there will be little federal money available to close them,” says the CBPP report, States Continue to Feel Recessions Impact. “As a result, states' final 2012 budgets have contained some of the deepest spending cuts since the start of the recession.”

On top of that, as I wrote last week, future federal budget cuts will cause state revenues to drop even more. And, if that weren’t enough, states have seriously underfunded many longterm obligations such as pensions. One Wall Street analyst, Meredith Whitney (who was right about housing in 2007) predicts hundreds of billions of dollars in debt defaults by local governments. She recently told CNBC that states are in worse financial shape than they were six months ago.

So what is the impact of all of this on Indian Country?

Seattle attorney Gabriel Galanda puts it this way, on the social network, LinkedIn: “Tax-starved states and counties will continue to attempt to extract value from reservation economic-development projects, through taxation or otherwise. Tribes must be vigilant in their defense against illegal inter-local cash grabs.” On Galanda’s blog he writes that Washington state Republicans are proposing to “close” tribal tax loopholes worth $110 million. “Make no mistake about it,” he writes, “the state tax man cometh to Indian Country. Be prepared.”

On the spending side, the most important conflict between tribes and states will be over Medicaid. This is one of those federal programs that is not supposed to be about Indian Country, yet its impact is huge because it represents expanded funding for the Indian health system. But states, not the federal government, write the rules and regulations to pay for Medicaid programs, even though the cost is reimbursed by the federal government for patients within the Indian health system. 

This is all pretty dark stuff. But are there also opportunities for tribes?

Tribes and states have far more to gain with cooperation over confrontation. Tribes are large employers and contribute to regional economies in huge ways. In Idaho, for example, a study by Abelardo Rodriquez of the University of Idaho Extension found that Idaho tribes created some 7,500 jobs (4,500 of those gaming-related) with wages near $160 million generating $17 million in property and income tax payments. If these jobs were created by, say, IBM instead of five Idaho tribes, the state legislature would be falling all over itself to protect this asset. Tribes need to reframe the debate along these lines.

Another opportunity is to reframe Medicaid rules. One good approach would be to remove states from making rules about the Indian health system and shift this power to tribal governments. The Affordable Care Act already sets out a plan for the Navajo Nation, but as budget tightens, other tribes need to assert authority over Medicaid.

State governments need solutions right now. Tribal governments could be and should be the unexpected partners.

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 Thu, Jun 23, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate

I don't want my State government "partnering" with sovereign nations that aren't subject to the same laws as I.

BlueLight

Posted Thu, Jun 23, 11:54 a.m. Inappropriate

"I don't want my State government "partnering" with sovereign nations that aren't subject to the same laws as I."

So are you against the Federal Government signing free trade agreements with sovereign nations? ie. NAFTA?

What about your State government "partnering" with sovereign states, that have different laws? Last I looked every state has it's own constitution and set of laws.

What about your city government "partnering" with county government and your own state government?

Or would you rather move to an offshore island and become "independent"?

GaryP

Posted Thu, Jun 23, 11:57 a.m. Inappropriate

If I were in charge of tribal government's funds, I'd be buying back the land around the Res. If I were a tribe from Montana, I'd go for acquiring Eastern Montana. But then that's probably not profitable land, and it's probably not at it's bottom dollar yet.

GaryP

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »