Last week President Barack Obama held his first town hall on Twitter. A really great idea and I plunged in with this question:

 “#AskObama Indian Cntry’s unemployment rate is unacceptable. Cutting govt jobs will make this situation far worse. What steps to fix this?” @TrahantReports

 A Twitter town hall is a great idea. In theory. This first round revealed three huge problems.

 First, the president didn’t play the game. Twitter requires focus, honing and shaping ideas into 140 characters. This is not an easy thing to do, by its very nature it changes the conversation. Twitter captures raw essence, not routine answers. The president stuck with routine answers.

 Second, the town hall was impossible to participate in as a reader. The posts were flying by so fast that it was impossible to get any sense of the issues or the nation. It was better to read the threads later — after the event. One way to fix that problem would be to create multiple hashtags — or search cues — that create mini-conversation threads. So #AskObama would be followed by #Ndnissues … or something like that.

 Third, and this one really troubles me, a town hall of this sort makes it even more impossible for  smaller demographic groups to participate. The Twitter universe for Native Americans is tiny — not enough buzz to warrant attention. Again, in theory. But that needs to be fixed. Twitter (or any other social media) ought to be ideal for reaching constituent groups that are rarely heard from in general conversation. I love that this president has had tribal leaders’ forums, but I would also like to see Indian questions appear in a general forum such as the Twitter town hall.

 I have a good example of that. Many remember my question to President Bush about tribal sovereignty. But my second question, the one that’s not replayed on YouTube, was about the payroll tax. Too many politicians treat the payroll tax as if it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t contribute to the government. This is the federal tax that impacts Indian Country the most. In fact, it now generates 36 percent of the government’s revenues, more than double that of corporate taxes. Yet when the discussion about taxes pops up … it’s income or corporate taxes that must be cut; not the tax that matters to most of us.

 The payroll tax is particularly difficult for people who are self-employed (disclosure: that’s me). We get to pay double. Most people only pay half, their employer pays the other half. But if you work for yourself, well, write a check. Or two.

 I wanted to ask the president about government jobs because I don’t see how we avoid a second recession dive with so many layoffs ahead. Friday’s employment report put this trend into perspective, saying: “Employment in government continued to trend down over the month (-39,000). Federal employment declined by 14,000 in June. Employment in both state government and local government continued to trend down over the month and has been falling since the second half of 2008.”

 “Big” government has been getting smaller for nearly two years. And if Republican budget proposals are enacted, this trend will exacerbate. It is a fantasy to think that the private sector will replace these jobs any time soon.  Unfortunately with more government reductions ahead that “minus 39,000 jobs” might look like the good old days.

 I am a huge fan of Twitter. I’m there every day. But President Obama was right to answer town hall questions in long form rather than trying to tap out 140 character answers. This country’s problems are complicated. And too many — read this The House Republicans — favor simple, easy slogans, answers that might even fit on a line of Twitter. But every policy choice ahead has pluses and minuses. There is no easy way to fix our debt, balance our demographic challenges or anything else. What we need are thoughtful, messy, imperfect solutions that match the challenges of this particular era. Or as I might write on Twitter: Solving US money woes in 140 characters equals #fail.

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

 

 

***

RELATED

From the White House blog:

The President answered a series of questions on jobs and the economy at the first-ever Twitter Town Hall at the White House. Check out the full video of the event, or just the jump links below to skip to the questions.

@whitehouse: in order to reduce the deficit, what costs would you cut and what investments would you keep – bo

@Conblog: @DrewHampshire: What mistakes have you made in handling this recession and what would you do differently? #askObama

@dwhite105: Higher ed. is necessary for a stronger economy, but for some middle class Americans it’s becoming too expensive. What can be done? #askobama

@_RenegadeNerd_: #AskObama Mr. President, will you issue an executive order to raise the debt ceiling pursuant to section 4 of the 14th amendment?

@ensina: Immigrant entrepreneurs can build companies and create jobs for US workers. Will you support a startup visa program? #askobama

@awg9988: @KimQuillenTPWill you focus on promoting alternative energy industries in oil states like Louisiana and Texas? #townhall

@pmglynn: Mr. President, In several states we have seen people lose their collective bargaining rights. Do you have a plan to rectify this? #AskObama

@robinmarty: @Kara_McGuireHow will admin work to help underwater homeowners who aren’t behind in payments but are trapped in homes they can’t sell?

@johnboehner: After embarking on a record spending binge that’s left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs? #AskObama

@nealhannon: Small biz create jobs. What incentives are you willing to support to improve small biz growth? #AskObama

@craigoc34: @whitehouse@townhall My question is can you give companies a tax break if they hire a Honorable discharged Veteran?

@NickKristof: #AskObamaWas it a mistake to fail to get Republicans to commit to raise the debt ceiling, at the same time tax cuts were extended?

@almorrison88: #askobamaWhat changes to the tax system do you think are necessary to help solve the deficit problem and for the system to be fair?

@Shnaps: Is free-market an option? RT @whitehouse: Obama on homeowners underwater: Have made some progress, but+ needed, looking at options #askObama

@pedsnursemarcia: @AssignmentDesk1#AskObamaPublic Edu here in CA falling apart. Not grad enough skilled workers or smart citizens. Privitization looming?

@flynnbw: @WhiteHouseWe definitely need to get more vets into jobs. But when are we going to support the troops by cutting oil dependence? #AskObama

@ModeledBehavior: So will you raise taxes on the middle class at least to W Bush levels @askObama@townhall

@Ronargus: @whitehouse Now that the space shuttle is gone where does America stand in space exploration?

@BrianJMcKeon: @whitehouse Cut defense contracting. End war on drugs. Eliminate agribiz and big oil subsidies. Invest in public campaign financing.

@ElizaCait: @whitehouse Stop giving money to countries that waste it (Pakistan) Keep military (share the wealth between branches), don’t cut education.

@DannyJedski: @whitehouse we need to raise taxes – period.

@tammyvent: @whitehouse cut military spending and oil subsidies and keep education investments. #askobama

@MostlyModerate: @whitehouse Cut subsidies to industries which are no longer in crisis or are unsuccessful: Cotton Oil Corn subsidies for ethanol

@gsxr7501: @whitehouse I’d cut costs by cutting some welfare programs! People will never try harder when they are handed everything!

The new Era of Constriction — shrinking all levels of government — is both an opportunity for tribes and a threat.

First, the problem. State and local governments are in deep financial holes. The optimistic view is that state governments have seen the worse and have turned the corner; they are still facing shortages, but far less than a couple of years ago. There are a lot of numbers to back up this argument. State budgets are smaller by some 14 percent, there are fewer employees, and 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.

But that optimistic accounting is tempered by a couple of problems. 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. His message is clear. “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. (A further complication: Both Democrats and Republicans protect the share of Medicaid that pays for nursing home and institutional care, while the debate about the program ends up shifting to serving the “poor” rather than looking at Medicaid as a whole.”)

This is all pretty dark stuff. State budgets represent choices of bleak and bleaker. So what’s the opportunity for tribes?

But tribes (and states) have far more to gain with cooperation over  confrontation. Tribes are large employers and contribute to regional economy in huge ways. States should be protecting and enhancing that spirit of enterprise, rather than destroying it with short-sighted attempts to tax. 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. It’s time 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 — and tribal governments could be and should be the unexpected partners. (Next week: Where local governments fit into this puzzle.)

 
 

Mark Trahant

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

 

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics started a frenzy when it released its latest job report, showing that only 54,000 jobs were added to the economy in May.

 The White House says don’t worry too much about those numbers; it only represents one month. Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told The Associated Press that the addition of a million new jobs over the past six months shows “we have improved a long way from when the economy was in rescue mode.”

 That’s true. And, I think the White House ought to get more credit for keeping the economy from falling off the cliff. But at the same time, the future prospects for job creation are bleak. Why? The Republicans are demanding a policy of major government contraction while the White House is “negotiating” for a policy for some contraction. Either way all governments are shrinking. The economy is going to lose a you-know-what load of jobs or a mega-load of jobs. Either way there are a lot of minus-signs ahead.

 The May jobs report hints at what’s to come. First, it said, long-term unemployed – those out of work for 27 weeks or more – continued to grow by 361,000 to 6.2 million people and “their share of unemployment increased to 45.1 percent,” the BLS said.

 So what’s the government doing for the long-term unemployed? Not a damn thing. The overriding idea is that some magical private sector beans are going to be planted soon and grow jobs for millions of people.

 At the same time the numbers of long-term unemployed continue to grow, the government sector is cutting its own workforce. Big time. “Employment in local government continued to decline over the month, ” the report said. Local government lost 28,000 jobs last month and 446,000 jobs since a peak in September 2008. That’s just the beginning. If the trillion dollars worth of cuts demanded by Republicans come into being those job losses will look small by comparison.

 Another industry hit by government contraction: Construction. When government at all levels cuts back on infrastructure, there are fewer jobs building roads, schools, buildings. Here is what the Bureau of Labor Statistics report says about that: “Construction employment was essentially unchanged in May. Employment in the industry has shown little movement on net since early 2010, after having fallen sharply during the 2007-09 period.”

 How does Indian Country fit into this picture? That’s a tough question to answer because so much of the data is old and often unreliable. (More than ever: Indian Country needs real time data, but that’s another column.) But we do know for certain that unemployment is significantly higher in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Population and Labor Force Report pegs it at near 50 percent nationally (showing South Dakota with the highest unemployment rate at 83 percent of the adult workforce). While a report last year by the Economic Policy Institute, using a different methodology, showed an unemployment rate of 21.3 percent in the first half of 2010. (EPI also found unemployment rates significantly higher in the Great Plains.)

 Of course the problem with all of those numbers – bleak as they are – is that they look backward, not forward. What are the prospects for Indian Country in this new environment of contraction? Remember government, at all levels, is in a job-cutting mode. Tribal and village governments have spent the past decade essentially creating jobs both in government and in the private sector (but even private jobs, are often tied to government through construction and other infrastructure projects). The problem is those jobs have not kept up with an expanding population because Indian Country is a younger workforce.

 When it comes to jobs – nationally and in Indian Country – there is an insurmountable mathematical obstacle. The more jobs that are cut by the government, mean that many more must be created to put the long-term unemployed back to work.

 It’s been said that Indian Country is in a permanent recession. But the sad truth is it could get a lot worse – and it’s a path we’re on right now.

 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Canada just finished its national elections and the governing Conservative Party expanded its majority in parliament. Last week Prime Minister Stephen Harper also announced the historic appointment of two Native Canadians to that country’s cabinet. 

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo said it was the first time the cabinet would include both an Inuit member and a First Nations member, returning Health Minister Leona Aqlukkaq and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue. 

This Canadian record-breaker is worth thinking about in the United States. There is a deep pool of Native American talent already working at federal agencies such as Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service, so it’s time to see the promotion of an American Indian or Alaska Native to the post of Surgeon General, as a member of the Federal Communications Commission, or better yet, to run another cabinet agency? (We’ll save the “who” on this list for another day.) 

But will President Obama even have a second term? And will Indian Country be as excited about Obama in 2012 and it was in 2008?  

It’s way too early in the process to answer the first question. We don’t even know yet which of the Republican challengers is the strongest contender making it hard to compare philosophy, record and approach to governing. And, answering the second question is also complicated. Many in Indian Country saw the last election in terms of immediate change. Some are disappointed because President Obama didn’t do this or that. But the U.S. government is slow. Real change needs to be a sustained effort over time. The president has done a solid job working with tribal leaders on core issues, ranging from consultation to protecting the budget from sharp congressional cuts. And the idea that U.S. policy could be worse — far worse, at that — is not a message that excites voters. 

After the last election, Wizi Garriott, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, who was then working for the Obama campaign, told Indian Country Today, “For us, the campaign has always been about community empowerment. We’ve tried to put as many resources as possible into Indian communities so we can help our own people organize and empower themselves. That’s what this is all about.” 

That’s still what it is about. The type of change that’s required is not going to come from any presidential administration. It will require more people to organize and empower themselves at the community level. To my way of thinking the Obama administration’s policies have complemented that very notion. If that message is clear — especially if it is accompanied by specific Obama administration policies and actions — then there is a good chance Indian Country will turn out and vote again. 

I write opinion and not straight news. So I will be blunt. It’s critical for Indian Country to re-elect President Obama. We also need a Democratic-controlled Senate (if not House). 

But to make that happen it’s important that Indian Country look for reasons to get excited about a second term for President Obama, instead of simply being against a Republican candidate. That excitement (not anger) is what will stir a stronger turnout. This was true in 2008. It was true in Alaska’s Senate race. And it could be true again in 2012. 

An energized Indian Country could make a difference and decide the outcome in Alaska, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Washington. This one voting bloc could be the difference in a Republican Senate and a Democratic one. 

Why does this matter? The House Republican budget is a template for what that party would like to do to the federal budget. Its impact on Indian Country would be catastrophic. We cannot let this happen — so winning the next election is critical. 

And, like Canada, perhaps a second Obama administration will break the record when it comes to federal cabinet appointments. ‘Course it’ll only take one appointment to do that. 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Republican Party unity on the issue of a massive restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid (if there is such a thing) ended this past weekend. Presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he opposed the House budget proposal designed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. 

“I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change,” Gingrich said. “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.” 

I take issue with the notion that the Affordable Care Act is “left-wing” social engineering. To my way of thinking it’s just a baby step toward the type of reforms that are required by the country’s changing demographics. A radical left-wing solution would be single-payer health care system, not one where private doctors and insurance companies are guaranteed profits from the individual mandate.  

But the country also needs a real debate about the hard reality of demographics — there are more seniors than ever, plus we all live longer — and it’s those facts that call for some sort of radical restructuring of Medicare. At least Ryan’s plan does that, even though I disagree with it. His idea is to essentially protect current seniors, shifting the burden to people my age (just under 55) and to younger workers. But this a really tough issue and there ought to be a consensus solution. 

The reason why Medicare is so important is that the numbers are so staggering. Last year 47.5 million people were covered by Medicare: 39.6 million aged 65 and older, and 7.9 million disabled.  

The Medicare Trustees report that the “financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the changes in the Affordable Care Act. In the long range, however, much of this improvement depends on the feasibility of the ACA’s downward adjustments to future increases in Medicare prices for most categories of health care providers.” 

In other words, at some point, some point soon, we actually have to actually stop medical inflation. We have to find ways to make the current Medicare program less expensive.  

The Trustees say that Medicare’s finances are deteriorating rapidly. We need the cost-saving measures that the Affordable Care Act calls for sooner, not later. Unless the assumptions change, Medicare will be broke by 2024 (five years earlier than the projection from just a year ago). The Trustees say, “the sooner solutions are enacted, the more flexible and gradual they can be.” 

But those type of changes are difficult right now because they will be unpopular. Gingrich is a good example of that. He wants seniors to be content with what they have, safe from any radical restructuring.  

If Medicare is a favorite subject for pandering to voters, Medicaid is far more complicated and difficult to defend. The popular perception of Medicaid is that it’s the health care insurance for poor people, a program largely paid for by the federal government but operated by the states. That is true … but Medicaid is also a senior program because it pays for long-term care for those that cannot afford such services. That means that shifting Medicaid to block grants will require states to choose between paying insurance for poor people or funding long-term care. (It’s impossible to kick elderly or disabled out of nursing homes, so it’s likely the majority of state cuts will be for those who cannot afford any other health insurance). 

Indian Country would take a disproportionate share of these type of budget cuts because the Affordable Care Act uses Medicaid as a key funding source for the Indian Health System. Already some states are more generous with Medicaid than others — resulting in uneven health benefits. Block grants would only make that inequality worse. 

Newt Gingrich might have provided one service in the Medicare and Medicaid debate. If there is no unity on the Republican side, perhaps, just perhaps, there is an opening for a larger conversation about what  would really work in terms of a radical restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid that’s both fair and sustainable.  

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is trying to change the national debate about the deficit, the role of government and the impact of those policies on the day-to-day economy. 

“There are principled ways of cutting the deficit …  putting Americans back to work,” the Columbia University professor recently said in a speech, as quoted in the Nieman Watchdog. He said this is essential in a country where economic inequality is growing and where one percent of the population controls 40 percent of the wealth and takes one-fourth of the nation’s income every year.  

He says remember:  “The deficit didn’t cause the downturn. The downturn caused the deficit.” 

I wish this was the official line from the Obama Administration. Instead both Republicans and too many Democrats are proposing policies of contraction. We should be shouting: Invest in people! Invest in infrastructure! Invest in ourselves! 

Instead there is an unfortunate consensus supporting the policy of shrinking government without purpose; no one knows what the end game is supposed to look like, only the foggy notion that government should be smaller. 

The policy of contraction puts Indian Country at risk of a total economic collapse. It’s as if policy makers want to see how bad things can get on reservations and in native communities where the economy is already bleak. This is policy recipe being advocated: Significantly reduce government funding; shrink and eliminate the only good paying jobs available, and hope for the best. In the larger economy the mantra is that the private sector will pick up the pieces. (Although Stiglitz and other economists make the case that governments should be spending more now to create jobs because that would be the best way to end deficit spending). But that is total fiction in remote Alaska villages or on an Indian reservation because there is no significant private sector. Nearly all of the jobs are government — tribal, federal, or those programs funded by indirectly by government. 

Ideally Indian Country would get some sort of exception to this flawed policy of contraction — a hold harmless provision. That is happening a little bit. You see it in support from Republicans in Congress to protect the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service budgets. The problem is that tribes are no longer “sole” source entities; the impact of cuts to community health clinics are nearly as important as direct IHS funding.  

In my view tribes should prepare for the worst. We need to think through the impact of contraction policies and look for ways to protect people during the coming downturn.  

Every tribe, for example, might consider its foreign policy. Who’s in charge? What are the foreign policy goals for the tribal community? What is required to make that so? Is there even a designated person to look for international funding or building relationships with world governments? 

As the United States shrinks its spending, finding governments with an expansive investment focus is essential. 

A new report from the Asia Society says China’s direct investment in the United States was some $5 billion last year and that number is expected to grow. The report says the U.S. should send a clear message that China is “welcome.” That’s a message Indian Country should send as well. 

The report says China is interested in doing business here. “Chinese investors still seek deals in the United States and the investments are growing.  In particular, this appears to be the result of Chinese investors’ effort to broaden their portfolio of investments, spread the risk in that portfolio, and gain valuable management skills and western brands that they would not otherwise be able to acquire without investing in the United

States,” the report says, based on interviews with Chinese and U.S. officials. 

Indian Country has an advantage in dealing with China that isn’t true for the rest of the United States. Our infrastructure is already built using “state-owned” enterprises. We call them tribal enterprises and they range from farms to hotels and casinos. We already know how government investment can create jobs. 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard. 

Sometimes it’s easy for Indian Country to ignore the huge challenges facing the United States. After all, there are so many immediate and intense issues on reservations and in tribal communities that the idea of adding another layer of concerns just seems too much. 

But there is a connection.  The current federal policy of contraction — spending less on government programs and people — will have huge implications for Indian Country in the years ahead.  

The debate to increase the federal debt limit, the amount of money the United States is authorized by law to borrow, is a good example. Some Republicans have vowed to oppose a debt limit increase unless federal budget cutting ramps up significantly. If that happens, money will be cut from all federal programs, including those that benefit Indian Country. 

“The debt limit will be reached as early as March 31, 2011, and most likely sometime between that date and May 16, 2011,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a January letter to Senate and House leaders. Geithner warned Congress of “catastrophic economic consequences” if the limit is not increased.  

Consider the way the federal government pays for its deficits: It sells bonds at auction. Governments (such as China), institutions and people buy those bonds and receive interest payments in exchange. Right now the U.S. is getting a super deal on its loans, paying roughly 4.5 percent on 30-year notes. But if interest rates go up, so does that cost. In fact: This is a government program that’s already on automatic pilot because the U.S. has no choice but to pay the going rate at auction. 

We just finished a brutal fight over cutting $100 billion from government spending. Imagine all of those cuts now being wiped out in a split-second because interest rates are ticking up. Last year the U.S. Treasury paid $413 billion in interest. To show the scale of that number, one percent of that is roughly what is spent for Indian health care programs. 

What this means is that both political parties are promising to spend less and pay back that debt. There is no longer a debate about cutting — only differences about what to trim, how fast and what the impacts will be. Sooner or later there will be second debate about “revenue” or how much and how to tax.  

Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently told the Christian Science Monitor, “At some point – and it seems likely to be very soon – our creditors will begin to worry that we’re not credit-worthy, they will demand a higher price, and interest rates will go up.” 

And every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on health care or any other government enterprise. It’s money that is paid to “investors” as profits. I’d prefer government help people. 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard. 

A few weeks ago Bloomberg News reported that Saudi Arabia is investing $100 billion in renewable energy sources. In other words the country with the largest known reserves of oil is spending its profits building power plants fueled by nuclear energy, wind, geothermal and solar power. 

What does Saudi Arabia know that the rest of us don’t? Simply this: It’s far better to save every drop of oil for export (especially with prices exceeding $110 per barrel) and build a less expensive alternative at home. Why not? Saudi Arabia, like any desert nation, is an ideal spot for solar production. 

The high cost of that oil impacts Indian Country in a number of ways.  

Native American consumers are hit especially hard because so many reservations and Alaska villages are geographically isolated. Gas is always expensive — and when it creeps up across the country — well, the cost goes beyond reach. One Minnesota study reports that even in good times (when gas is pegged $1.50 a gallon) it costs nearly 44 cents per mile to operate a pickup truck. “Extremely rough roads” (what we would call, “rez roads,”) increase that price by another 5.5 cents per miles. And all those numbers total before $4 a gallon. Or worse, $5 or $6 a gallon. 

The family math is daunting. When it costs $50, $100 or $150 to fill up a tank … then there is not enough money for everything else including food and other must-buy purchases. (Indeed: If four in ten Americans say the price of fuel is causing a serious economic hardship, what is that number in Indian Country?) The economic impact of soaring fuel will affect everything from the price of hay to the cost of working away from home. 

“Now, whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians racing to the cameras, waving three-point plans for two dollar gas,” President Obama said over the weekend. “You see people trying to grab headlines or score a few points.  The truth is, there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away.” 

The president said: “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow’s. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long term, that’s the answer. That’s the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” 

Indian Country reflects this complexity. While Native Americans are impacted by prices … tribes are also energy producers from oil and gas to alternatives such as wind and geothermal. Over the long haul tribes have much to gain from alternative investments and a variety of projects across the country are doing just that. 

Early next month tribal leaders will meet with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu in the Washington, D.C., area to discuss “a broad range of energy and environmental issues.” The idea is to include the views of tribal governments in a broader U.S. energy policy. 

There are two policy considerations here. First, the long-term policy is one that every nation — even Saudi Arabia — see in terms of developing energy alternatives. That’s a good thing.  

But a short-term policy should be simpler: What will it take for a family’s math to make sense over the next few months? 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard. 

Mark Trahant

Tall tales are fun. Most of us love the story about the day we scored perfect on a test, caught the biggest fish or won a bunch of cash at the casino. 

 

The best tall tales start off with happened and then grow with each telling of the story. The test day becomes a full course. The biggest fish gains pounds and ferocity. And the money? Well the total amount might stay the same … but we forget to say how much we carried into the casino or how much we later gave back.  

This is the power of stories. They are fun to tell and to hear. The best stories stay with us for years and years, growing in scale over time. 

It’s the same in public policy. Tall tales have been told about taxes over and over that sound really good to us, the listener. We hear and believe that we are the most taxed, most overburdened people in the world and that our wealthiest citizens have lost their zeal to invest because government has ripped away all incentives to succeed. 

David Cay Johnston, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his financial reporting while at The New York Times, once again took the time to break down the numbers. His latest work was published in dozens of newspapers last week, an important policy primer: “9 Things The Rich Don’t Want You To Know About Taxes.”  

One myth he explodes: the poor don’t pay taxes. Instead of relying on telling a tall tale, Johnston looks at the data and “the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont.” Or the flip side of that idea is that the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes. “It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government,” Johnston writes. “Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners.  That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.” 

Indeed the payroll tax, for most of us, has become the government’s primary tax vehicle. As the Tax Policy Foundation puts it: “For households in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale, the average payroll tax burden per household for tax year 2004 was $917, while the average federal income tax burden per household (excluding refundable portion of EITC) was $171.” 

Yet the narrative, the story, is only about the income tax. There is an outright dismissal of those whose burden is the payroll tax. It’s almost as if that is not real money, not a real contribution. But the payroll tax is regressive — and say a young single woman on a Indian reservation in Montana pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than, say, Donald Trump. “I have Donald Trump’s tax records for four years early in his career,” Johnson writes. “He paid no taxes for two of those years. Big real-estate investors enjoy tax-free living under a 1993 law President Clinton signed. It lets “professional” real-estate investors use paper losses like depreciation on their buildings against any cash income, even if they end up with negative incomes like Trump.” 

I have been concerned with the burden of the payroll tax for many years. Many folks remember my question to President George W. Bush about tribal sovereignty. But I also asked him about why when he talked about tax cuts, he only meant income taxes. “Well, obviously,” the president said. “I chose to provide tax relief by income tax cuts, not by payroll taxes, and the reason why is payroll taxes relief will affect the solvency of Social Security. So I chose not to deal with the payroll tax.” 

So we who don’t make a bundle are taxed more because that money is set aside for Social Security (and Medicare). Ha! Now that’s a tall tale that no one believes. 

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s recent book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.