Indian Gaming

are we gonna screw them again

Published on September 30, 2004 By Cafin8ted In Politics

Ok - I live in California, and In the S.F. Bay are on top of that. Having said that I think I am in one of the smallest minorities out here. I am a white republican male. I am writing this, because we have a proposition out here that is really starting to get me riled up, regarding Indian gamming.

It seams that yet again the white man is out to screw the Indian's, Claiming this time that they are not "paying there fair share" - Oh my god. Ok lets see here, we have consistently changed the size of their reservations - if not moved them all together. The land that we do tell them they can have, is (in most cases) desolate, barren, and way the hell out of the way. Now we already stipulate what kind of games they can have, how many machines they can have, and they have to negotiate a lease ( typically 99 years). Now the Indians want to branch out and put casino's on land that "isn't reservation land". The land would be purchased by private funds, and taxed. I believe just sales tax, And I am not sure if they would pay property tax every year. Anyway, we have two conflicting ballot propositions in the mix for the vote, coming up in November. Here are what the say:

Proposition 68

Proposition 68 essentially makes this proposition to the gaming tribes: pay 25% of your "net win" to the state or lose your monopoly on casino-style gambling. "Net win" is the take from all slot machines after prizes are paid out, not including operational expenses. Tribal casinos in Connecticut and New York pay up to 25% in their respective states, and Proposition 68 backers view 25% as a "fair share." The tribes would also have to comply with state laws on environmental protection, gambling regulation, and political campaign contributions.

If Proposition 68 passes, California's 64 gaming tribes (those with tribal compacts) would have 90 days to agree to the 25% charge. If even one dissented, the tribal gaming monopoly would end, and casino-style gambling would be open to card clubs and racetracks.

If casino-style gambling were enabled in card clubs and racetracks, they could install up to 30,000 slot machines. Card clubs would pay 30% of the net win to the state and between 1% and 2% to the county and city hosting the casino. Racetracks would pay an additional 20% into a fund to benefit the horse racing industry.

In both monopoly and non-monopoly scenarios, the net win revenue would go to a new Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, and the bulk of it would be redistributed to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and firefighting services. Net win revenue could be over $1 billion in either scenario, according to the Legislative Analyst.

Proposition 68 proponents say that the gaming tribes consume public services, but pay almost nothing in taxes from casino income, and that in return for their slot machine monopoly, the tribes should pay taxes on a par with gaming tribes in other states. If the tribes are unwilling to do so, proponents contend, the monopoly should end, and card clubs and racetracks should have the option of offering slot machines too.

The official ballot argument against Proposition 68 contends that the proposition is "really a deceptive attempt to change California’s
Constitution to create huge Las Vegas-size commercial casinos on non-Indian lands throughout California." Opponents also object that almost none of the net win revenue would go to the state, and that because Proposition 68 would negate the current gaming compacts, the state would suffer a substantial revenue loss. Opponents claim that the compacts negotiated by Governor are a better deal for the gaming tribes and California taxpayers.

Proposition 70

Essentially, Proposition 70 would:

Continue the tribal gaming monopoly, with no limits on the number of machines, facilities, or types of games on Indian land. Casinos could offer roulette and craps (currently forbidden), and have any number of slot machines.
Tax Indian gaming income at the state corporate tax rate, currently 8.84%, and waive most other state and local taxes and fees on tribal gambling activities.
Require the governor to negotiate new 99-year compacts at a gaming tribe's request. Existing compacts expire in 2020 or 2030.
Require gaming tribes to prepare environmental impact studies for new and expanded casinos.

The Legislative Analyst says the amount the state would receive in gaming revenue from Proposition 70 is uncertain, and tribal payments to local governments would be reduced by millions of dollars annually.

Proposition 70 supporters say that the state should treat tribal gambling operations as it would any other business, and tax them the same way. It is not fair, they maintain, to burden the gaming tribes with alleviating the state's budget difficulties, as Governor Schwarzenegger has attempted to do with his renegotiated compacts. Proponents note that, unlike Proposition 68, Proposition 70 restricts tribal gambling operations to Indian lands.

Proposition 70 opponents contend that its monopoly status makes tribal gaming unlike other businesses, and that the fiscal relations between gaming tribes and state and local governments are best governed by the compacts negotiated by the governor. Proposition 70, opponents say, is a tax giveaway to the gaming tribes and an open door to an unprecedented expansion of gambling operations in the state. Opponents also object to the lack of an auditing requirement for independently confirming taxable gaming income, and criticize the 99-year compact provision as too long.

Excerpts taken from - - http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htProps68&70TribalGaming.html

official ballot text -- in .PDF format can be viewed here:

Proposition 68:

Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance

Proposition 70:

Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance

I guess I think we should give the Indian tribes something back (maybe not the national debt) but, they deserve some recompense for the Hundreds of years of persecution we have given them (as a whole). I think that should not have to pay taxes that everyone wants them to pay. So what if California is in dire striates, and it looks as if he tribes stand to earn a substantial amount of money. Were have we been with money for the Indians when times were good - did we (government) give them any more, because we could afford it, No, and now we want the tribes to bail us out of our financial woes. I don't think that is "Fair"

Comments (Page 1)

charles poore

on Sep 30, 2004

You write as a compassionate person and that is good. However were talking money here and heaps of it, [pardon the pun] In the first place we need to understand where the money comes from, this part is easy, It comes from the American dollars. Indians do not have there own currency. Where it goes to is another story and I doubt you'll find out. Unless and untill it should be made public I would say were are allowed our suspecions.

However if you win anything above twelve hundred [and I have] You will fill out a form and they will know more about you than your Mother. [see my blog of 3/20/04] I've won nothing since,does that tell you anything? Its OK,my bank account is growing again

I use to work with the Indians ,there a lot of fine people ,and they do not need to be felt sorry for,neither do they need to be exploited. I am positive they would be content to pay their fair share, IF they were making the decisions.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to look out for the hard working American taxpayer. It seems we feel sorry for everyone except those that bust their asses everyday supporting "The Feel Sorry Fors" How about a little compassion for this tribe?

Gene Nash

on Sep 30, 2004

I've won nothing since,does that tell you anything?

No. What was that supposed to tell me?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to look out for the hard working American taxpayer.

Too many Pete Wilson-ites still running around. They tried to railroad the tribes and got their heads handed to them. Now that they've wheedled their way back in on Arnie's coattails they're taking another run at it.

Cafin8ted

on Sep 30, 2004

First - Off - i am not saying that we need to feel sorry for them. Compassionate for group of people (AMERICAN) people, that have been neglected and told (for generations) "you can live as your ancestor did, just do it way over here, cuz we can't use this land anyway". I am just saying this is a free country built on capitalism, right. Why do we say 1 - you can only have your business built this way - 2- Oh, your making money, lets renegotiate. How many times has the Government renegotiated with the Indian tribes in our history. We (Government) feel that if there is a way to get more money out of a person /company / organization - when they begin to excel and prosper, OH LET CHANG THAT - Come on when will it stop?
I do think we should all pay our fair share, I don’t think, that a MOB (ethnic majority) should dictate how a minority should do business. The commercials out here make me sick – Using the “affirmative action” argument in a totally new way – Lets make up our minds, are you for such things when they benefit you, and against them when they seemingly benefit another minority – were is the logic in that. I can’t stand the “cry baby” mentality, that this argument (TV adds) have shown,,, Gahhhhh

drmiler

on Sep 30, 2004

Reply #1 By: charles poore - 9/30/2004 3:43:50 AM
You write as a compassionate person and that is good. However were talking money here and heaps of it, [pardon the pun] In the first place we need to understand where the money comes from, this part is easy, It comes from the American dollars. Indians do not have there own currency. Where it goes to is another story and I doubt you'll find out. Unless and untill it should be made public I would say were are allowed our suspecions.

Excuse me I would like to know what gives ANY government the RIGHT to tell the American Indians how to do any thing ON the reservation? Last I knew once you crossed the line onto an indian reservation you were under THEIR jurisdiction. And subject to their laws.

Cafin8ted

on Sep 30, 2004

Except - when it comes to how they make money - it's obsurd I know, but true

Myrrander

on Sep 30, 2004

This is going to be one of the few instances that me and Drmiler agree on. They were here first. We've killed them, shuffled them about, and basically put them on the crappiest land possible. Let's leave them alone on this one, eh?

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 30, 2004

wow, write this date down in the history books! DrMiler, Myrrander, and Gideon all in agreement! I think it's a sign of the apocalypse.

It's a "tribal sovereignty" issue. While Bush doesn't understand it (see WF's blog), I think it's within the realm of most of our comprehension.

drmiler

on Sep 30, 2004

Reply #7 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/30/2004 2:12:05 PM
wow, write this date down in the history books! DrMiler, Myrrander, and Gideon all in agreement! I think it's a sign of the apocalypse.

It's a "tribal sovereignty" issue. While Bush doesn't understand it (see WF's blog), I think it's within the realm of most of our comprehens

And here come the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse!

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 30, 2004

And here come the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse!

You rang?

I agree with DrMiler, Myrrander, and Gideon.

Myself from Oklahoma, and being both born and raised there by living there for 17 years out of 23 years of my life. Also with many friends who are Kiowa, Comanche, Cherokee, etc. and the state's name is a Choctaw word for Red People, wholeheartedly agree that these Native Americans should not be exploited this way.

Last time I checked you and the Native Americans do not pay state taxes on a reservation, because it is their land, and the Government after screwing them over for so long has gave them some leeway finally when it comes to that. States should not and cannot tax money made on Native American Land, and what it sounds like to me, they just want to get their greedy tax-lovin' hands on Native American Money.

This would like Oklahoma or Connecticut taxing those Casinos, which I don't think they do, but if somebody wants to get deeper on it, they can check into it.

- GX

Lee1776

on Sep 30, 2004

Now the Indians want to branch out and put casino's on land that "isn't reservation land". The land would be purchased by private funds, and taxed.

Now don't jump all over me for bringing this up, because I am sideing with everybody else here, but opponents will point out that this is not reservation land. (Some one has to get this debate a little deeper)

This has opened my eyes to something localy here in Reno, NV. I have counted about five or six indian smoke shops in local popular trip malls. This gives me thought. Is it right for Indians to pick locations like the middle of commercail areas and call it a tax fee zone? Is it fair to the non-Indian small shop owners that also make a living off of selling cancer sticks too in the same area?

Personnely I have nothing to do with the casinos localy and indian casino's are making our area more diversified and have our local casinos getting poeple in house with special events like "Hot Augest nights", Reno Airshow ect... That is good healthy compatition. But is it fair to allow them to put a casino in down town San Fran and not have to pay for the Fire department, Police suport ect...? Maybe I'm over blowing it, but I want to here from others before making a final opinion on weather we need to make some regulations.

That's My Two Cents

oligarchy314

on Sep 30, 2004

The native American race has been mostly wiped out and nearly all of their land stolen. If they want to set up a few casinos, I really don't think anyone should complain.

Cafin8ted

on Sep 30, 2004

Wow - This is great - I like seeing all of this.
To that let me pick a few thing.

1. "We are on their land" If i m not mistaken - (not to mention the Mexican peoples as well - to which I am married, and have two hansom boys) we stole their land and have not paid them a dime. My argument is not whether they should pay taxes ( because they will do that - its a matter of % points)

2. The majority of my argument is fairness - people are equating the Indians gaining % points on income and the downfall of our public school systems. Question how many records have been set as of late regarding the Lotto, PowerBall, ect. Isn’t that money supposed to be going to our school systems? What about taxes on gas - isn't those infrastructure related money.

3 Lets look at the money our public servants pay into social security ( uh oh - not a penny) these esteemed gentlemen and ladies vote for their own pay raises, make a hell of allot more than most of us, and don’t pay back, yet their retirement, is still much more than anyone of us could hope to make. Look it up, some of them will retire on over a million a year - A YEAR - and we want to dip into Indian gaming money because it's successful.

4 The Indians are trying to get a bit of an advantage, by branching off of the reservation, that is out in the boonies, to get closer to their customers - That seems to me to be fair, and if they pay property taxes, That is what pays for fire and schools - so in effect paying for land that is already theirs, is that fair. Well I am late for dinner and the debate, so I will check back in later.
Wirefree

sandy2

on Sep 30, 2004

I like your ideas in that we have mistreated the Indians, but if you think about it, the Indains should not be given the benifits they are given on their reservations outside of their reservations. In Detroit, we have 3 casinos, and the stipulation was that they have to be at least 1/4 owned by an Indian tribe. This worked well, because they are all held by many shareholders, and they have to pay the same taxes as any other business. Casinos are really a great help to an economy and a city (especially in detroit). Stipulations need to be made, since casinos are esentially minting machines. There should be a casino tax, and the casinos should be required to build large hotels (again I only know of Detroit's situation, sorry if this is irrelevent to SF Bay area).

Now when you said you were in the minority...did you mean for a white republican or did you mean that white republicans are in the minority? Just wondering.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 30, 2004

"We are on their land" If i m not mistaken - (not to mention the Mexican peoples as well - to which I am married, and have two hansom boys) we stole their land and have not paid them a dime

I am tired of this age old diatribe. If you truly feel that the Indians have the proper claim to the land, please deed over your land to the tribe that inhabited it before the white man came and vacate it immediately. Otherwise, stop asking us to do it.

Cafin8ted

on Sep 30, 2004

Gideon
I don't own any land, and I think your argument is correct. I have not said we should give them any land. What I did say is that we have (as late as the 50's) moved reservations, diminished reservations ect. If you look at what I am saying, it's about the fact, that now, California is in financial difficulty, and the lines are being blurred about how we should take more money from the ventures of the Indians, on Indian land.
I never wanted to make this a race issue, I do however think that the panty waist public servant (Congress - senators - representatives) should buck up and quit selling a pig-in-a-poke, and get down to business, and give the indigenes peoples of this great country a bit of a break. Don't blur the issue wherefore you want us to give the deeds to our land - come on

Sandy2
quote]Now when you said you were in the minority...did you mean for a white republican or did you mean that white republicans are in the minority? Just wondering
In the SF Bay area a white republican male is a minority in terms of ideals - that’s all I meant - actually republicans are in the minority

Wirefree

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!