Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed collecting the tax on the sale of cigarettes (eventually gasoline) from Indian businesses to non-Indian consumers.
If agreed upon, Indian businesses would be compensated with a share of the tax revenue.
The collection of the proposed taxes could add as much as $200 million to state coffers annually -- a sound proposal.
After all, Americans spend a lot of money on cigarettes and gasoline. Collecting any tax on Indian vendor sales could potentially increase the amount of money coming back into our communities, unlike buying from the Indians to spite "the man" and then blaming "the man" when the Indians later seek to expand upon the same thriving enterprise.
It's a ridiculous and never-ending circle.
In contrast, Spitzer's plan aims to recover expenses that the state is rightfully owed. New Yorkers are already accustomed to paying these taxes, so this would be in essence found money for our communities.
But this proposal has met with resistance. Spitzer seems to have struck a nerve by suggesting the unthinkable -- negotiating with New York Indian nations over the details.
In the wake of 9/11, the word negotiate is almost blasphemy. The Bush Administration made clear that the U.S. would not negotiate with terrorists, likening the process of bargaining with an opponent to fraternizing with the enemy.
But this is not always the case.
In general, a lack of communication guarantees defensiveness and resistance to change. Moreover, a refusal to negotiate signifies a rejection of the opposition and unwillingness to compromise.
Compromise is crucial because the very act recognizes that both of the involved parties are willing to negotiate for mutual gain, allowing for concession and trade. Bringing this issue before the courts is a lengthy process and the local economies could lose everything, including the state collection of taxes.
Also, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is not constrained to rule in accordance with how the courts have been leaning, and forced agreements can be very unstable, making the court route a risky gamble.
A decision to negotiate does not necessarily mean acceptance of another side's values or conduct. It is important to recognize that perceptions and conclusions are often based on stereotyping, bias, projection and misinformation.
One man's enemy is another man's hero.
If powerplays must be made, the goal should always be getting the other side to the negotiating table rather than designating a referee to make a "black or white" call. In this instance, I believe that Spitzer wants to negotiate a reasonable deal that would be beneficial to both sides, rather than role the dice with the BIA.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The collection of the proposed taxes could add as much as $200 million to state coffers annually -- a sound proposal.
After all, Americans spend a lot of money on cigarettes and gasoline. Collecting any tax on Indian vendor sales could potentially increase the amount of money coming back into our communities, unlike buying from the Indians to spite "the man" and then blaming "the man" when the Indians later seek to expand upon the same thriving enterprise.
It's a ridiculous and never-ending circle.
In contrast, Spitzer's plan aims to recover expenses that the state is rightfully owed. New Yorkers are already accustomed to paying these taxes, so this would be in essence found money for our communities.
But this proposal has met with resistance. Spitzer seems to have struck a nerve by suggesting the unthinkable -- negotiating with New York Indian nations over the details.
In the wake of 9/11, the word negotiate is almost blasphemy. The Bush Administration made clear that the U.S. would not negotiate with terrorists, likening the process of bargaining with an opponent to fraternizing with the enemy.
But this is not always the case.
In general, a lack of communication guarantees defensiveness and resistance to change. Moreover, a refusal to negotiate signifies a rejection of the opposition and unwillingness to compromise.
Compromise is crucial because the very act recognizes that both of the involved parties are willing to negotiate for mutual gain, allowing for concession and trade. Bringing this issue before the courts is a lengthy process and the local economies could lose everything, including the state collection of taxes.
Also, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is not constrained to rule in accordance with how the courts have been leaning, and forced agreements can be very unstable, making the court route a risky gamble.
A decision to negotiate does not necessarily mean acceptance of another side's values or conduct. It is important to recognize that perceptions and conclusions are often based on stereotyping, bias, projection and misinformation.
One man's enemy is another man's hero.
If powerplays must be made, the goal should always be getting the other side to the negotiating table rather than designating a referee to make a "black or white" call. In this instance, I believe that Spitzer wants to negotiate a reasonable deal that would be beneficial to both sides, rather than role the dice with the BIA.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.