First: Gerrymandering can be defeated. The election districts in Virginia were designed to support incumbents, and especially Republicans. The Atlantic described the “well-documented” Republican operation to gain “control of the mapmaking process in 2010 (and) saw their share of legislative seats steadily grow, even as their actual vote shares decreased. In other words, these maps helped Republicans retain majorities even when they earned substantially fewer votes.”
That changed Tuesday. Voters swamped the supposedly safe districts and Democrats gained significantly. Perhaps even control of the legislature (votes are still be counted and will be recounted in a key race). So turnout beats districts drawn by one side to win. (The definition of gerrymandering.)
Second: Minority parties can win in this election cycle. It’s always tough to run as a third or fourth party candidate in the United States. The deck is stacked. The system is rigged to favor the two established parties. However some twenty-plus self-described Democratic Socialists (ala Bernie Sanders) won on Tuesday, including Denise Joy in Billings, Montana. Joy was elected to the city council.
This could be an interesting trend.
Some states, California and Washington, have top-two primaries. That means a candidate can win even without party affiliation. But in most states — unless the rules change — the biggest opportunity for socialists, independents and Green Party candidates is for offices such as school boards and city councils. Another mechanism that makes it easier for third party candidates is ranked choice voting (where you pick your favorite, second favorite, etc.) Several cities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota, now use that approach. Maine also voted to adopt ranked choice, but has not yet implemented it because of opposition from the legislature (and entrenched parties).
In Arizona, Eve Reyes-Aguirre (Calpolli) is running for the U.S. Senate on the Green Party ticket. She is a co-chair of the Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus and a co–founding Mother of the newly formed World Indigenous Women’s Alliance. She was also a representative at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women for the American Indian Law Alliance- 2015, 2017. Reyes-Aguirre is also running against the two-party system. Her web site says: “The two-party system has allowed wealth inequality to skyrocket to it’s highest point since the 1920’s. Eve is committed to developing an economy that promotes a equal sustainable quality of life for more families through the enactment of a living wage, limitations on corporate tax incentives, and a truly progressive tax structure. We must all be treated equal to live equal.”
That brings to eight the number of Indigenous candidates running for the U.S. House or Senate so far in 2018 election. Three Republicans — Rep. Tom Cole (Choctaw), Oklahoma; Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Cherokee), Oklahoma, former state Sen. Dino Rossi (Tlingit), Washington — and four Democrats — former state NM state Democratic Party chair Deb Haaland (Laguna), Carol Surveyor (Navajo) in Utah, Tahlequah Mayor Jason Nichols (Cherokee), and J.D. Colbert (Choctaw) in Texas.
Lesson three. This is the “when” to jump and run in 2018 races. So much about politics is timing. Good candidates sometimes, no often, lose because their timing is off. It’s not the right cycle. There are too many headwinds. Barack Obama generated turnout that encouraged Native voters and candidates. The chaos of 2016 with Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump did just the opposite. Turnout was down, especially in Indian Country. But we know most Native American candidates are already outsiders. So we need a little luck. And good timing.
The 2018 election ought to be that. President Trump and his Republican Party have to defend infighting plus legislative failures from healthcare to possibly taxes. And the president’s popularity is only about a 38 percent approval rate. Awful numbers. On top of that, even popular presidents lose midterm elections. Democrats lead in the average of generic polls, 47 percent to 38 percent.
But Indian Country needs more candidates, especially in districts that can be won in this climate.
My top pick: Alaska’s at large district. Several Alaska Natives have challenged Rep. Don Young for this seat over the years, including Willie Hensley (Iñupiaq), Georgianna Lincoln (Athabascan), and Diane Benson (Tlingit). And Young seems invincible. He was first elected in 1973 and is the longest serving member of the House. But, if this is a wave election, then no member of the House is invincible. And, even better, there are some really strong potential Alaska Native candidates.
At one point during the 2016 election cycle (which we now know was not good timing) there were more than a hundred Native American candidates. We need those kind of numbers again. Especially this time around. There are more than 62 Native Americans serving in state legislatures around the country and many of those will be running for re-election.
So that brings me back to rule 3, part A. It’s my favorite rule in politics because it’s so simple: You gotta run to win.
A year ago ballots from across the country were being examined by citizens, journalists, and politicians, who were all wondering, “What the hell just happened?” The nation woke up to a President-elect Donald J. Trump.
And this morning? The Trump brand is like an overpriced hotel where you would never, ever stay a second time.
Voters from Maine to Washington and all points in between rejected Trumpism. They voted for Democrats, flipping legislatures in Washington and possibly Virginia. They voted for Medicaid. Medicaid! They voted for higher wages. And there is a clear message to Congress (if members pay attention) that governing still matters.
It was a good night for Native American candidates, too.
In Washington, Roxanne Murphy, Nooksack, won a second term on the Bellingham City Council with nearly 80 percent of the vote. What’s striking is that she ran against the ugly words of an opponent who called on hate instead of discourse. Murphy wrote on Facebook: “Got through so much racism and misogyny during this run for office. But that was all worth it for me to defend our Bellingham community, the work of our current Bellingham City Council, to mutilate a deplorable person at the polls, get more people to vote the whole ballot, and it proved that love can win over hate. Thank you for RoxingTheVote!”
Several other Native candidates won office in Washington. Chris Roberts , City of Shoreline, Zachary DeWolf, Seattle School District, and Candice Wilson, to the Ferndale School Board.
Washington voters also flipped the legislature from red to blue. The entire West Coast is now governed by Democrats.
Renee Van Nett, Leech Lake Ojibwe, won a seat on the Duluth, Minnesota, city council. She will be the first Native American woman on that body. She told the Duluth News Tribune that her victory was a credit to “traditional issues that people are worried about … they want someone who’s accessible, someone they can call and talk to, someone who will address their needs. They want economic development. They want to be heard.”
Across the country “diversity” was a theme from election night. The “first” is a phrase that seems odd in 21st century America. Yet the first African American Lt. Governor in New Jersey. Another in Virginia. (Hint: The first Native American woman to serve in that capacity should be be next up, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota.)
The first Sikh mayor in Hoboken (who had to run against overt hate). The first immigrant from Liberia in Montana. The first openly lesbian mayor in Seattle. (Huffington Post has a list of many of the firsts.) The main take away: This was a rejection of the narrow world view of the Trump. The diversity that is the future of America, won. Bigly.
On the policy debate ahead, perhaps the most important vote came from Maine where voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of expanding Medicaid. Maine is one of 19 states whose Republican governors or legislatures have refused to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. This is an initiative — and a process — that could move to other states. “This will send a clear signal to where the rest of the country is on health care,” Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, told The Washington Post. This vote is important because it could tip the scales in states where the legislature says one thing and the people another. Alaska. Cough. Alaska. Put Medicaid expansion on the ballot: And it will win.
Elections, of course, are always snap shots. It’s dangerous to think this rout means more of the same a year from now. But the groundwork is there. And this election night will further divide many Republicans from Trump — as well as those who fund elections. There is now real evidence from the best poll of all that voters are not happy with the direction of Congress or the White House.
New Mexico congressional candidate Debra Haaland is criss-crossing Indian Country determined to get her name out there — and to raise enough money to be competitive. She began in Milwaukee at the National Congress of American Indians annual convention and she ends the week in Anchorage at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention.
Politics is a tough business. Most Native American candidates cannot dip into their personal wealth to run for office (at least the Democrats). It’s raising money five bucks at a time. A good haul is when someone writes a check with more than one zero. Yet it’s hard to understate how important that money hunt is to a campaign. Haaland, unlike most Native American Democrats, is running in a district with a lot of other Democrats. That means she has an excellent shot at capturing a seat in Congress — the first Native American woman to do that — but first she must win a crowded primary. Haaland is Laguna Pueblo.
A Thursday night fundraiser in Anchorage was typical. It was much more of an introduction than a call for hard cash. That’s important. It was great to hear stories. We need that in politics. But it will take money, too. If we really want to see more Native Americans in Congress, thousands of five-plus dollar donations will make all the difference.
At that event one of the most touching moments was when Diane Benson, who ran for Congress in Alaska against Rep. Don Young, talked about why she ran. Her son had been injured in the military and yet politicians were making war and peace decisions without an understanding of the consequences. Benson is Tlingit.
I have been collecting information about Congress and Native American representation. And, it turns out, I was wrong about the actual numbers. I checked this morning and according to the House of Representatives historian since March 4, 1789, there have been 10,273 people elected to that body. (I was using a smaller number.) There has never been a Native American woman. Ever.
This is my “I am wrong post” because I also was missing an important name, Georgianna Lincoln, from my list of Native women who have run for Congress. Lincoln, a former state Senator, is Athabaskan, and she also ran against Rep. Young in Alaska.
So here is my list, starting in 1988, Jeanne Givens, a Couer d’Alene tribal member in Idaho was the first. Then Lincoln in Alaska, Ada Deer, Menominee, in Wisconsin, Kalyn Free, Choctaw, in Oklahoma, Diane Benson, Tlingit, in Alaska, and Denise Juneau, Mandan Hidatsa Arikara, in Montana. Three Native women have run in the Democratic primary in Arizona: Mary Kim Titla, White Mountain Apache, Arizona Rep. Wenona Benally, Navajo, and Victoria Steele, Seneca. And in this election cycle, Carol Surveyor, Navajo, in Utah and Haaland.
I better stick with “at least” because I am sure more names will surface. But the point remains: It’s long past time to elect the first Native American woman to Congress. After 10,273 (add another 435 for next November) elections we need a first. And a second. And more, real representation.
Let’s do the numbers. We have the first round of campaign finance reports out and there are seven Native American candidates for Congress, three Republicans and four Democrats.
And in the money chase, it’s the Republican candidates raising the dough. Former Washington state Sen. Dino Rossi, running in Washington’s 8th, in this quarter reports $578,822. To put that amount in perspective: That’s more than the incumbent, Rep. Markwayne Mullin, and nearly as much as Rep. Tom Cole. Mullin raised $511,017 this quarter. And Cole is at $640,649 (with $1.7 million cash on hand).
Rossi is Tlingit, Mullin is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and Cole is Chickasaw.
On the Democrats’ side the numbers are smaller.
Haaland has raised $262,098 so far in this election cycle. She’s second in the money race in her Albuquerque district. Remember this election is as much about the June primary as it is the general election because it’s a Democratic-leaning district.
Tahlequah Mayor Jason Nichols, Cherokee, is running against Rep. Mullin. He has yet to file any campaign reports. No reports are listed for Carol Surveyor in Utah and J.D. Colbert in Texas.
Let’s play with a word and an idea. “Hegemony” means the dominance of one political group over all others. That, at this moment, is the Republican brand. President Donald J. Trump, a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a conservative, if not Republican, court system that will judge the law and Constitution for years to come. Hegemony.
But that word has been corrupted. Once the Greek word, “hegemon,” meant to lead. But the root word “heg” in English later became to seek, or better, to “sack,” as in ransack.
So hegemony is a fine word to describe the Trump era. The goal is to ransack (instead of lead). Ransack the government. Or at least the idea of government.
There is no better example of hegemony than the debate about the climate. The Republican brand from top to bottom is bent on grabbing as much natural resource loot that can be carried away in short period of time.
Except this: Hegemony is an illusion. What seems like absolute power is not.
This should be easily evident from hurricanes, fires, and other growing climate threats. You would think this is the moment for a pause (at the very least). A time out to examine what’s going on around the world and then a consideration about what should be done.
But the Republican brand, including the people who manage federal Indian programs, are willfully hostile to facts.
The World Meteorological Organization reports that natural disasters have tripled in number and the damage caused by them have increased five-fold. “Today, there is scientific proof that climate change is largely responsible for the dramatic increase in the intensity and devastation caused by the hurricanes in the Caribbean and by many other phenomena around the world,” said United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres after a tour of Dominica. That island, including the Kalinago Indian Territory, was hit with successive category five hurricanes. “I have never seen anywhere else in the world a forest completely decimated without one single leaf on any tree,” said Guterres, who flew by helicopter over some of the most affected areas, including Kalinago Territory.
And Puerto Rico still waits for clean water, sanitation, electricity, and basic infrastructure more than a month after its storms. Yet President Trump told reporters Thursday: “I’d say it was a 10” as he described the federal government’s response. “I’d say it was probably the most difficult when you talk about relief, when you talk about search, when you talk about all of the different levels, and even when you talk about lives saved. You look at the number. I mean, this was — I think it was worse than Katrina.”
The governor of Puerto Rico has a different take. “Recognizing that we’re in this together – US citizens in Texas, US citizens in Florida, US citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands – we need equal treatment,” said Gov. Ricardo Rossello. “We need all the resources so we can get out of the emergency and of course the resources to rebuild.”
We know, yes, know, that climate change will leave parts of the earth uninhabitable (as we have already seen in tribal communities in Alaska, Washington and Louisiana.) How many times can you rebuild when storm after storm wipes out the life you know? How do we as a country, as a species, decide when we can no longer rebuild or stay? I’ve been thinking a lot about the Iranian city of Ahvaz where temperatures last summer reached 129 degrees. When will it become too hot, 130? 132? What’s the number that we just hit before we leave?
Who will be the next climate refugees?
Already in Puerto Rico that demographic transformation is occurring. “It could potentially be a very large migration to the continental United States,” said Maria Cristina Garcia, a Cornell University historian, immigration expert, and author on large-scale population shifts, which includes a forthcoming book on climate refugees in Scientific American. “Whether that migration will be permanent or temporary is still anyone’s guess. Much depends on the relief package that Congress negotiates.”
Puerto Rico has 3.4 million residents. Think of the magnitude of so many people, half a million or more, moving to Florida, Texas or any other state. Only then will the fecklessness of Congress be clear.
So much of the debate now only focuses on the “relocation.” But Indian Country (that’s had too many experiences with forced relocation) knows that’s only the beginning of the governmental and social costs. There will be costs ranging from demands for behavioral health to increased joblessness and poverty. The fact of hundreds of thousands of American refugees should be seen as a dangerous crisis worthy of our immediate attention.
Right now we don’t even think of Californians as climate refugees, but we should. At least 100,000 people were evacuated and nearly 6,000 homes and buildings were destroyed. And this number will grow and it ought to raise more questions about where humans can and should live.
“An increasing body of research finds that the hot and dry conditions that created the California drought were brought on in part by human-caused warming,” writes Georgina Gustin in Inside Climate News. “Higher temperatures pull moisture out of soil and vegetation, leaving parched landscapes that can go up in flames with the slightest spark from a downed utility wire, backfiring car or embers from a campfire.
California’s average temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the second half of the 20th century. Altogether this has led to more “fuel aridity” — drier tree canopies, grasses and brush that can burn.”
Gustin writes that research from the Pacific Northwest National Labs and Utah State University projects more extreme drought and extreme flooding. “If global carbon emissions continue at a high level, extreme dry periods will double, the study finds—going from about five extreme dry “events” during the decade of the 1930s, to about 10 per decade by the 2070s. Extreme wet periods will increase from about 4 to about 15 over the same periods, roughly tripling.”
Again, raising the question of where people can be? Think of the tension about immigration now — and multiply that by a factor of ten or a hundred to get a sense of the scale ahead.
The failure of coal
There is another dimension to hegemony — or the lack of that in the federal government. Cities, states, tribes, corporations, and individuals, are ignoring the ransacking of the climate and moving forward with a global community focused on solutions. Markets are exercising power, too.
One example of that is the Trump administration’s failure to revive the coal industry. This was one of Donald J. Trump’s main campaign promises. The chief executive of a private coal company, Robert Murray, sums up the illogic. Just a week ago he said on the PBS’ News Hour: “We do not have a climate change problem” and 4,000 scientists told him that “mankind is not affecting climate change.” Murray’s former lobbyist has been nominated as the deputy director of the Environmental Protection Administration. Already the EPA has proposed rolling back the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. But the new coal regulations (or more likely, non-regulations) will still be challenged through the regulatory process and in court.
And its the markets for coal that are dictating the terms of surrender. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports coal consumption picked up after President Trump’s election but has started to decline again. “The recent decline in production was a result of weaker demand for steam coal, about half of which is mined in Wyoming and Montana. Production of metallurgical coal, which is used in steel manufacturing and makes up about 8% of total U.S. coal production, increased for the third consecutive quarter,” the EIA reported. “Demand for steam coal, which in the first half of 2017 made up more than 90% of U.S. coal production, is driven by coal-fired electricity generation. In recent years, coal has lost part of its electricity generation share to other fuels, but it still accounted for 30% of the U.S. electricity generation mix in the first half of 2017 compared with natural gas and renewables (including hydro) at 31% and 20%, respectively.”
And the jobs that were promised? There are now under 60,000 people employed nationwide by the coal industry. And about a thousand jobs, at most, were created since Trump took office. By comparison during that same time frame one of the fastest growing jobs, wind turbine service technician, created 4,800 new jobs at an average salary of $52,260. But the big numbers are in health care (where we should be growing jobs) an industry that created 384,000 new jobs as home health aides in the last year.
But Congress acts as if it has all the power over nature. The budget the Senate just passed would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. Instead of a pause, and a rethink of climate policies, there is a hurry up and drill mentality. (Even if you love oil: Why now? Why not wait until it’s worth something? The answer is because it will never again be that valuable. The era of extraction is over.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski is an interesting position. She’s fought hard for Medicaid and for the Alaska Native medical system. She deserves credit for that. But the budget she now champions could undo all of that work because the generous tax cuts will have to be eventually paid for by cutting from social programs, especially Medicaid. And what will the new costs be for more development in the Arctic in terms of subsistence hunting and fishing, potential relocation, higher health costs, and increased strain on the environment?
A group of elders from the Bering Sea recently published a report on their Ecosystem and Climate Change. “The cold, rich waters of the northern Bering Sea and Bering Strait form the foundation of culture, food security, and economy for coastal Yupik and Inupiaq peoples, who have relied on the abundant marine resources of this region for thousands of years,” the report said. “But this unique ecosystem is vulnerable to ecological transformation and uncertainty due to climate change … climate warming is leading to change in seasonal ice, altering the abundance, timing, and distribution of important species. The loss of sea ice is in turn causing a dramatic increase in ship traffic through these highly sensitive and important areas.”
How do we change course? How do get a pause? One way is to wait until it’s too late.
In Dominica there is a forced rethinking that followed the hurricanes. Roosevelt Skerrit, the country’s prime minister, recently put it this way: “Our devastation is so complete that our recovery has to be total. And so we have a unique opportunity to be an example to the world, an example of how an entire nation rebounds from disaster and how an entire nation can be climate resilient for the future. We did not choose this opportunity. We did not wish it. Having had it thrust upon us, we have chosen actively and decisively to be that example to the world.”
A shining example, yes, but at a cost that has been extraordinary and painful. The price of hegemony.
First, Congress tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act by rolling back that law plus the decades long public health insurance known as Medicaid. That effort failed in the Senate. Twice. And Congress hasn’t given up. There are all sorts of proposals floating that would try yet again through the budget or another mechanism.
Meanwhile the Trump administration is trying to unravel the Affordable Care Act using administrative authority. And, in the process, guaranteeing a network of insurance chaos. The President signed an executive order that eliminates payments to insurance companies to subsidize the cost of health insurance for families that cannot afford the full cost. Insurance companies will likely increase health insurance premiums — and by a lot — or get out of the individual health insurance market all together.
This policy change impacts American Indians and Alaska Natives who get their health insurance through the exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, many tribal members and Alaska Native shareholders quality for a “bronze plan” from exchanges at no cost. A silver plan could also have been purchased, depending on income, using subsidized rates.
The Kaiser Family Foundation figures that insurers will need to raise silver premiums between 15 and 21 percent on average to compensate for the loss of the subsidy payments.
It’s interesting: Ending the subsidy will cost consumers more in states that have not expanded Medicaid (such as Oklahoma) since there are a large number of marketplace enrollees in those states with incomes at 100-138 percent of poverty who qualify for the largest cost-sharing reductions.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the total payments were $7 billion in fiscal year 2017 and would rise to $10 billion in 2018 and $16 billion by 2027. The House of Representatives sued the Obama Administration to try and stop these insurance subsidies arguing that Congress never appropriated the money.
The CBO also said that ending the insurance subsidies will increase federal deficits by $6 billion in 2018, $21 billion in 2020, and $26 billion in 2026.
A second administrative order will change the way insurance companies write policies. The Affordable Care Act set out standards so that basic health care issues, including women’s reproductive health, would be covered. But the new rules will make it easier for people to buy limited policies that cost less, but cover fewer medical issues.
“Congressional Democrats broke the American healthcare system by forcing the Obamacare nightmare onto the American people. And it has been a nightmare,” the president said. “You look at what’s happening with the premiums and the increases of 100 percent and 120 percent, and even in one case, Alaska, over 200 percent. And now, every congressional Democrat has blocked the effort to save Americans from Obamacare, along with a very small, frankly, handful of Republicans — three. And we’re going to take care of that also because I believe we have the votes to do block grants at a little bit later time, and we’ll be able to do that.”
But the actions by the administration will only lower the cost of health insurance for one group of Americans, young, healthy ones. Insurance costs for nearly every other plan will sharply increase because of these actions. And especially at risk: Patients who are facing expensive medical treatments such as cancer.
Earlier in the week, the administration also rolled back Affordable Care Act coverage requirements for access to birth control. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: “These new policies, effective immediately, also apply to private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans. The immediate impact of these regulations on the number of women who are eligible for contraceptive coverage is unknown, but the new regulations open the door for many more employers to withhold contraceptive coverage from their plans.”
The actions of the Trump administration mean two things: There will be chaos in the insurance markets as companies and individuals rebalance the value of those policies; and there will be litigation ahead because every one of these policy shifts will be challenged in court.
It’s easy to get discouraged reading the news or looking at the political landscape. It’s a frightening mess: Mass murder, climate change, an election system that at its roots is unfair, and on and on.
But the thing is every new challenge is matched by opportunity. Our legacy — and the definition of legacy, is a gift — are the platforms where Native leaders come together and solve problems. The world of politics is one such platform. And so often it may seem like it’s only a far off promise, but yet, that legacy kicks and we see a new generation answer.
Too much philosophy? Ok. I’ll get to the news: Rep. Peggy Flanagan is running on Congressman Tim Walz’ gubernatorial ticket for Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer Labor party. Gubernatorial? That’s a funny word. It’s from the Latin gubernator, common in the 1500s, but pretty much only used by journalists these days. Yet such a stuffy word is also a good metaphor because of what Flanagan’s candidacy represents on at least two levels.
First, it’s another breakthrough race (think back to that word legacy). As a citizen of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, Flanagan would be the first American Indian woman to serve as a state Lt. Governor and would be the highest ranking Native woman ever in a state constitutional office. (The only other one is Denise Juneau when she was the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.)
The second level shatters the word “gubernatorial.” Back in the day, well, pretty much since the 1500s, the power of office was represented by a single man making big decisions. There is even an explanation of history, the Great Man Theory, that aligns a singular moment with a Napoleon or a Winston Churchill. But Walz and Flanagan would be different (a product of our times) and the Lt. Governor’s office represents a partnership. Partnerships and involving more people is how the best teams will govern from here on out.
“Peggy’s vast knowledge and expertise will be something I rely on daily,” Walz said in his campaign news release. “Walz and Flanagan first met at Camp Wellstone in 2005, where she taught him how to knock on doors during his first Congressional run. They’ve maintained a friendship ever since.”
She taught him. Three words that ought to redefine politics.
The idea of a partnership in governing is recent but growing more common. Bill Clinton and Al Gore changed the nature of the presidency. It’s certainly true now in Alaska where Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott swap issues and sentences with ease. (Walker and Mallott are also up for re-election next year.) But these are all bros. It’s still a boys club.
Flanagan represents the challenge — and opportunity — for political representation by (and for) Native American women. This country has never elected a Native American woman to lead a state, or even as a Lt. Governor. And we still have never elected a Native American woman to Congress despite some really fantastic candidates. That, too, could be a barrier to fall in this election cycle. If you look at the number of elected Native American women across the country in legislatures, and in county governments, or in city hall, then you see the possibility of a slow wave, real change unfolding over time. (Previous: She Represents.) It’s not a question of if … only how long do we wait?
There are two groups within Indian Country that are underrepresented by a lot, women and urban residents. Most Native Americans live in cities and suburbs yet most of the elected representation comes from reservation and rural communities. We need both. In the Minnesota legislature, and in public life, Flanagan has been that voice for urban Native Americans.
Back to that word, legacy.
Flanagan is prepared to govern. She already knows how government works, and, more important, why government matters. She’s currently the state representative from District 46A, representing St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Plymouth and Medicine Lake. She is a partner in the Management Center, and has trained progressive candidates on how to run for office through Wellstone Action. She is the former director of the Children’s Defense Fund – Minnesota.
Flanagan was a speaker at Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia where she read a letter to her daughter, Siobhan. “Because, despite everything that has happened to our people, and no matter what Donald Trump says, we are still here. And I want you to grow up with our people’s values: Honoring our elders, showing gratitude to our warriors, cherishing our children as gifts from the Creator.”
The Senate has given up on destroying Medicaid and much of the health care system and is now focused on restructuring the federal tax system (and destroying entitlement programs in the process).
Here is what Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation: “We’re going to double that standard deduction. We’re going to make it so he can fill out his taxes on a postcard. We’re going to lower his taxes. That’s really important. So he has more tax-home pay. But there’s another component to this is, look at this machine shop, this business pays about a 40 percent tax rate but it competes with companies all around the world who pay an average 22 and a half percent on their taxes.”
The GOP Framework begins with this set of principles: “President Trump has laid out four principles for tax reform: First, make the tax code simple, fair and easy to understand. Second, give American workers a pay raise by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. Third, make America the jobs magnet of the world by leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers. Finally, bring back trillions of dollars that are currently kept off-shore to reinvest in the American economy.”
So how does Indian Country fit into that framework? Indians don’t pay taxes, remember? Actually if you Google that phrase it returns 2.17 million hits. It’s still a myth that will not fade away. But the larger issue of tax reform and its impact on Indian Country is still a complicated question, one that starts with the definition of “taxes.” Most so-called middle-income wage earners pay income taxes. Roughly one-third of all wage earners do not pay income taxes — and that would include a lot of tribal citizens, especially those living in their tribal nations. There are nearly 150 million tax returns filed every year and 36 million end up paying no tax at all. Another 16 million had taxable income but didn’t pay anything because of tax credits, deductions and other adjustments.
And, many of Indian Country’s working class especially benefit from one such credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is a hugely successful policy that returns cash money to some 7 million family incomes; a paid bonus of sorts for working.
“Numerous studies show that working-family tax credits boost work effort,” according to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “The EITC expansions of the 1990s contributed as much to the subsequent increases in work among single mothers and female heads of households as the welfare changes of that period, extensive research has found. Women who benefited from those EITC expansions also experienced higher wage growth in subsequent years than otherwise-similar women who didn’t benefit. And, by boosting the employment and earnings of working-age women, the EITC boosts the size of the Social Security retirement benefits they ultimately will receive.
In addition, the research shows that by boosting the employment of single mothers, the EITC reduces the number of female-headed households receiving cash welfare assistance.”
So far, at least, there is no plan to end the Earned Income Tax Credit. However the House Budget Committee has proposed that the IRS require more proof from taxpayers and audit homes with an error. (Auditing the poor seems a long way from the Willie Horton philosophy of tax collection, or bank robbing, and that’s the idea you go where the money is.)
In Oglala Lakota County, for example, some 2,010 taxpayers out of 3,980 collected an average of $3,020. The bulk of that was collected by families earning less than $25,000. And the average tax bill was $7,170. The county is comprised almost entirely of Native Americans and the Pine Ridge Reservation.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is also critical to many Navajo families. In Apache County, Arizona, that includes a large portion of the Navajo Nation, some 27,172 take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit. And, like Pine Ridge, most are in the under $25,000 category, but the amounts are significantly more, an average return of a little more than $4,000.
In the Bethel Census Area of Alaska there are similar numbers. Nearly 2,400 people claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit and most of the workers earned under $25,000 and averaged a refundable return of $2,738.
My point here is that this is the one policy that is essential to Indian Country because it benefits so many people who have jobs but who barely earn a living wage. Any changes to this tax credit should be opposed vigorously.
It’s also important to remember that most tribal citizens pay a higher percentage of our income toward payroll taxes, instead of income taxes. A report by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation says that the 80 million tax filers making $40,000 or less will collectively pay no federal income tax and many will even receive cash payments from the IRS in 2015. But they will pay $121 billion in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes (including the employer share, which most economists believe falls on workers).
So that will be another important factor to watch as the debate heats up. Rarely does the payroll taxes — Medicare, Social Security, etc. — sneak into the larger debate about taxes. But it should be about the total taxation, not just income taxes.
And one other unique characteristic of Indian Country tax data is that the amount paid to state and local governments is significantly lower than the general population. In most states tribal members living on their home tribal nation pay zero in state and local taxes. This will be important to remember when Congress debates the deduction of state and local taxes. (A big deal for people living in high tax states such as California or New York, but less so in low tax states and where the sales tax is the primary method to fund state government.)
Congress has a complicated road ahead before it can even pass a tax bill. The plan is for both houses to enact a budget resolution, setting out the priorities for tax reform. This is a document that basically sets limits on spending (so the committees will still decide how to spend money for Indian programs, but will be limited by their budget ceiling). This will not be easy. The House and Senate will need Republicans to stick together on fiscal issues ranging from the border wall to how large federal programs should be cut back.
Basically the same tension that existed during the health care debate will play out between so-called moderates and the more strident anti-government wing of the Republican party.
If a budget is passed, the Senate can start take up tax reform and need only 50-votes to pass the legislation. Remember, if.
Speaker Ryan talked about fixing the business rate. The Republican mantra is that U.S. companies pay more than their global competitors. (Funny: This same argument doesn’t come up with health care where a company like Boeing spends a lot on its employee health care while the French Airbus can rely on its national health care system to save money.) But there is one last issue to watch: Don’t just believe any number that is posted as a tax rate. There may be a tax with 40 percent tax rate, but if the deductions and credits add up, the effective tax rate could be 20 percent. So that’s the number to watch and ask about, how much is that effective tax rate?
One final point: It’s interesting that so much of the discourse is about companies wanting to pay lower taxes as an incentive to create more jobs. Yet many technology companies are moving to the higher tax land called Canada. “As America closes its borders, Canada is playing the longer, smarter game,” Richard Florida and Joshua Gans wrote in Politico this week. “Canada, more than any other place, is uniquely positioned to benefit from Trump’s anti-immigrant posture … If he keeps up his anti-immigration push, the United States’ polite neighbor to the north could soon be eating Americans’ lunch.”
Dino Rossi has an interesting political legacy. He was for several weeks the Gov.-elect for Washington state. Then after much counting (and recounting) Democrat Christine Gregoire took the lead by 129 votes and was she sworn in as governor on January 12, 2005.
Since then Rossi has run for governor again, the U.S. Senate, and was recently appointed to a state Senate seat to fill out the remaining term of a member who had died.
Rossi is Tlingit. One of his first jobs was working for Bernie Whitebear at Seattle’s United Indians of All Tribes.
It’s interesting how some candidates make their tribal affiliation prominent and weigh in on issues that impact Indian Country. That would not be Rossi. But he doesn’t shy away (as many politicians do) from the conversation. It’s just not his focus. He has a fascinating background. From his transition team biography: “Dino’s mother, Eve, came from Alaska. She was half Irish, half Tlingit Alaskan Native. She’d married in Alaska and had five children, but the marriage became difficult. To get away from the situation, Eve took her kids to Seattle. For a time the family lived in public housing in Holly Park while Eve waitressed during the day and went to beauty school at night.” His mother met and married John Rossi and the family eventually moved to Mountlake Terrace. Back to the bio: “The Rossi kids were raised on a school-teacher’s salary. They didn’t have a lot of money, but their house was full of love.”
If you read his story, you’d think it was a classic liberal narrative. Public housing. Government works. But no. Rossi favors the bootstrap side of the story, a working family that raised itself up. He has always run as a conservative candidate. That said. In his Senate role he was willing to reach across party lines and come up with a deal.
I remember a Seattle P-I Editorial Board with then Sen. Rossi where he talked about the shortage of funds for higher education. But then, he suggested, book as much spending as possible on the capital side of the ledger. That’s where serious dollars could be found, he suggested. Creative.
Or as his bio puts it: “In the state Senate, Dino became a leader on budget issues. He eventually became Chairman of the Senate Ways & Means Committee – which writes the state budget – in 2003, when the State faced the largest dollar deficit in history. Dino was able to work across party lines and balance the budget without raising taxes and while still protecting the most vulnerable. Dino also focused on other issues: he spearheaded legislation to punish drunk drivers and child abusers; he worked to fund the Issaquah salmon hatchery; he secured funding for Hispanic/Latino health clinics, and he championed funding for the developmentally disabled community.”
Washington’s 8th District poses a lot of the same challenges that Rossi faced when he ran for governor; the demographics of the district (like the state) are more more diverse and liberal than a few years ago. But he enters this race with one advantage: He will be the only Republican while there will be a half-dozen Democrats. Washington has a top-two primary, but the winning Democrat will have to build name ID and consolidate support, something Rossi will already have with Republicans.
The seat is now held by Rep. Dave Reichert, a Republican.
There are now seven #NativeVote18 candidates for Congress. Three Republicans, Rossi as well as Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. Markwayne Mullin. And four Democrats, Carol Surveyor in Utah, Debra Haaland in New Mexico, J.D. Colbert in Texas, and Tahlequah Mayor Jason Nichols (who’s challenging Mullin). So far.
I have updated my #NativeVote18 interactive map and database, including early financial reports. (Speaking of that: I have started working on this cycle’s legislative database … if you know of candidates, please let me know.)
Haaland endorsed by Navajo Nation Vice President
New Mexico candidate Debra Haaland picked up an endorsement by Navajo Nation Vice President Jonathan Nez. He wrote: “Let’s honor the voice and rightful place at the table by electing the first American Indian woman to Congress. Deb is a champion for all citizens of New Mexico and will represent us with dignity on Capitol Hill.”
The “first” remains a powerful argument. Here we are in 2017 and Congress has never seated a Native American woman ever. As a Haaland fundraising page puts it: “Congress has never heard a voice like mine.” She is a Democrat.
Surveyor writes about her mother’s murder
On her Facebook page, Utah candidate Carol Surveyor tells a powerful, personal story about violence against women. “One has only to live on a reservation or speak to members of the communities to know that rates of missing and murdered women and girls are high. Nearly every Native family has a story of a female relative who is missing, murdered, or whose murder has gone unsolved,” she writes.
“So when my mother was murdered on November 30, 2015 four days after Thanksgiving I couldn’t stop crying. I couldn’t stop thinking about what were the last words I said to her, did I tell her I loved her, did she know. A week later on a Monday December 7, 2015 18 days before Christmas we buried my mother. I saw her white coffin lowered into the ground. As my mother’s bags that she use to carry with her when she came to visit were also lowered into the ground with her I felt my heart break.”
She writes: “My mother, My mother’s teachings of resilence is what got me this far.” Read the whole post.
This is exactly why it’s so important for there to be representation for all in Congress — including Native American women. We know there is a problem. We need more data and we need solutions. And that cannot be done without more voices where decisions are made.
Surveyor is campaigning as a Democrat.
ICYMI: My first audio election special is on iTunes or Soundcloud. Download here.
You have to wonder why the latest Senate Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act did not get written with one senator in mind, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Yet the bill by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is more conservative than previous approaches. It has lots of wish-list boxes to tick, no money for Planned Parenthood, big tax cuts, and its spends way fewer federal dollars. The bill only needs 50 votes to pass but that must happen before the end of this month.
Medicaid would become a block grant program that states could design (and pay for). So it would likely disappear. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that federal funding for health care would be reduced by $299 billion in 2027 alone with cuts impacting all states. And here’s a fun fact: Big states that expanded Medicaid would be hit harder. A lot harder.
Why 2027? That’s the year block grants disappear. Graham and Cassidy argue that only a temporary block grant would be allowed under the rules of debate. So no “new” thing. Congress would have to meet “pay for” standards to replace that after 2027; meaning there would be cuts in other federal programs equal to the new spending.
And, like other Republican plans, this one would add significantly to the ranks of the uninsured. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 32 million would lose coverage. States could also end essential benefits, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and allow companies to charge people significantly more when they’re ill. (Health insurance coverage that you cannot afford is the same as no insurance.)
“Like the earlier version of the Cassidy-Graham plan, the revised plan would disproportionately harm certain states. The block grant would not only cut overall funding for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies but also, starting in 2021, redistribute the reduced federal funding across states, based on their share of low-income residents rather than their actual spending needs. In general, over time, the plan would punish states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion or been more successful at enrolling low- and moderate-income people in marketplace coverage under the ACA,” the CBPP reports. So by 2026, the “20 states facing the largest funding cuts in percentage terms would be Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. These states’ block grant funding would be anywhere from 35 percent to nearly 60 percent below what they would receive in federal Medicaid expansion and/or marketplace subsidy funding under current law.”
A lot to like in Alaska, right? Murkowski said she is undecided until she sees the Congressional Budget Office assessment. She told CNN: “I will use the governor’s words,” Murkowski said, referring to Alaska Gov. Bill Walker. “He said, ‘I understand that a block grant gives me increased flexibility, but if I don’t have the dollars to help implement the flexibility, that doesn’t help us much.’ So, we are both trying to figure out how those dollars fall.”
Graham-Cassidy plan continues the 100 percent reimbursement to states for patients served by the Indian Health Service and it adds an increase in the federal match to 100 percent for medical assistance provided by non-Indian Health Service providers for tribal enrollees. The idea is more American Indians and Alaska Natives should take their business away from IHS facilities. Let’s be clear about this: It would drain resources away from the Indian health system.
This bill would also allow tribes to set up group plans to buy insurance for tribal members to replace the Medicaid expansion. “Creates new optional coverage group as of January 1, 2020 for members of Indian tribes up to 138% FPL in states that had expanded coverage as of December 31, 2019, who were enrolled in Medicaid as of December 31, 2019, and do not have a break in eligibility of 6 months (or a longer period specified by the state).”
So in summary this bill would not add any new resources to the Indian health system. But it would cut funding significantly (again, remember Medicaid).
The last Senate Republican plan failed by a single vote. It’s likely that Arizona Sen. John McCain will end up being a “yes” this time around (the state’s governor is giving him cover, saying it’s a good plan). However Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says he’s now a “no.” In his mind this plan does not repeal the Affordable Care Act. Susan Collins remains a likely “no.” If those positions stay the same, then this bill’s fate could end up being decided by Senator Murkowski.
Is there anything in this legislative gem that improves health care in Alaska? No. Does it improve the Alaska Native medical system? No. The Indian Health Service? No. Then why is she even considering this vote. It should be an easy no. Again.
The September Mess has started early. Congress will return to Washington next week facing some really tricky issues ranging from an increase in the debt limit to spending money so that the federal government can operate. President Donald J. Trump in Phoenix raised the stakes, saying he would favor a shutdown of the government unless Congress includes funding for the border wall.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, at an event in Oregon, said “I don’t think a government shutdown is necessary, and I don’t think most people want to see a government shutdown, ourselves included.” Funding for a border wall has already passed the House and is now waiting on the Senate.
But that’s where this mess gets tricky. It would take 60 votes to move that spending legislation forward (which is why the president keeps tweeting that the filibuster should go away) and the votes are not there. Democrats in both the House and Senate reaffirmed their opposition to the wall.
And there is another problem. Ryan said the Congress doesn’t have enough time to finish this year’s budget by Sept. 30 (the deadline for spending) and so it’s likely there will be another Continuing Resolution that funds the government through the end of 2017.
“The fact is though, given the time of year it is and the rest of the appropriations we have to do, we’re going to need more time to complete our appropriations process, particularly in the Senate. So that’s something that I think we all recognize and understand, that we’re going to have to have some more time to complete our appropriations process,” Ryan said.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president sees the wall as vital to national security. “The President has made no secret that this is a priority for him, and he continues to advocate for it and he’ll continue to make sure that we move forward to secure the border and secure our country,” she told reporters.
There is an unanswered question here: Will the Trump administration demand border funding in the Continuing Resolution? (Get the shutdown going sooner, rather than later?) Or will the fight be held off until the holidays?
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president sees the wall as vital to national security. “The President has made no secret that this is a priority for him, and he continues to advocate for it and he’ll continue to make sure that we move forward to secure the border and secure our country,” she told reporters.
As I wrote last time around: “So what will a closed federal government look like? History gives us a clue. There was a 21-day shutdown that started on December 16, 1995, and continued to January 6, 1996. According to the Congressional Research Service, “All 13,500 Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) employees were furloughed; general assistance payments for basic needs to 53,000 BIA benefit recipients were delayed; and estimated 25,000 American Indians did not receive timely payment of oil and gas royalties.
“And at the Indian Health Service, former IHS director Dr. Michael Trujillo, told Congress that the government closure “caused considerable hardship within Indian communities. One result of staff furloughs was difficulty in processing funds for direct services and to contracting and compacting tribes so the delivery of health services could continue. Those staff that continued providing health services were not paid on time. Threats to shut off utilities to our health facilities and even to stop food deliveries were endured. We reached a point where some private sector providers indicated that they might not accept patients who were referred from Indian Health facilities because of the Federal shutdown.”