The Monday post.

So goes Alaska ... goes Indian Country

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:07:43 -0700

There are three elements in successful political campaigns: money, organization and voter participation. The historic re-election of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, had all three … generated by Alaska Natives.

The story started with the defeat of Murkowski during the Republican primary by Joe Miller. In most years, in most elections, that would have been the end of the story. The senator would have thanked her supporters and gone on to do other things.

But 2010 was no ordinary year for a lot of reasons. The first one being a change in the election laws because of a Supreme Court decision. That decision meant that a third-party group could spend money on behalf of a candidate. .”… in Alaska, one independent group fully immersed itself in the new age of campaign spending, nearly doubling the amount of money marshaled in support of Murkowski's re-election bid: the "super PAC" called Alaskans Standing Together, created, managed and supported by Alaska's regional Native corporations,” wrote the Anchorage Daily News.

How much money? The News reported that Alaska Standing Together spent some $1.2 million in the three weeks before the election.

One interesting twist on the Alaska Standing Together strategy is that they also ran ads against the Democrat, Scott McAdams. Scott’s problem is he’s a “nice guy but he’s not electable,” the ads read. It quoted a New York Times projection saying McAdams only had a 4.3 percent chance of winning.

That made the election simple. Vote for a candidate who could not win, McAdams, or one who was dismissive of Alaska Native rights and corporations, Miller, or the third alternative, put everything on the table for the incumbent, the write-in candidate who had an uphill climb, but could win.

Money? Check. Organization? At the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in Fairbanks I saw that organization at work. Voter education, that included brochures, rubber wristbands, and other visual aids to successfully write in a candidate on a ballot.

And passion? At AFN, former SeaAlaska Chairman Byron Mallott introduced Murkowski and called this a “voyage into history.” He dismissed critics of Native Corporations saying that they represented an “expression of pride in Alaska, a confidence in Alaska, and an expression of who we are as Native people.” Then, he added, “The people I want to support are those with us now.”

The result of that passion was a higher than normal turnout in rural Alaska, often Native villages.

It’s always a mystery why Native Americans people choose to vote – or not to vote. On the Navajo Nation, for example, some communities voted in strong numbers during this election. The community of Sawmill, for example, voted in roughly the same numbers for the state election as it did for the Navajo Nation election (held on the same day with polling places often side by side). However in Red Mesa while nearly 60 percent voted in the tribal election, only about half that voted in the state election.

In fact, across Indian Country, communities that turned out in record numbers during the past presidential election essentially passed on this election cycle.

That pass was unfortunate for the many talented Native American candidates. Arizona Secretary of State candidate Christopher Deschene, a Navajo, lost by a wide margin – so turn out might not have helped. But it’s hard to tell because (as Alaska shows) you need three elements all to come together: voter participation, organization and money. Unlike Alaska, there were no outside expenditures from tribes or organizational efforts. Deschene was on his own. Unfortunately that’s the common story for most Native American candidates. There is neither enough money nor logistical support.

President Obama’s re-election campaign will bring some of this logistical support back to Indian Country. In fact, candidates that run in 2012 will have a better chance just because of the intensity of a presidential election cycle. But over the long term to be successful in winning elections there has to be a lot more than just poster campaigns calling people to vote. Every election, every successful election, also requires money and organization.

So goes Alaska … could go Indian Country. One day.

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 new book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Article of faith: Don’t make the poor balance the U.S. budget

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:51:00 -0700

There is a political article of faith: “Don’t raise taxes during a recession.” Just Google the phrase and you’ll find some 2.5 million results. The popular idea is that deeply embedded into our political thinking. Of course it makes economic sense: You want people to spend their money on goods and services. Then producers will hire more people, and people will have more money to spend, yadda yadda.

Here’s my concern: While there is consensus to protect the richest Americans – those who pay income taxes – there is little discourse, yet alone agreement, about protecting the poor and the working poor. We hear about saving the middle class, we hear about tax cuts for everyone (except this only applies to the income tax, not to the payroll taxes, a tax that is far more burdensome to those who earn less). But what about those who work hard but don’t earn a high wage?

I’ve already written about the zest for cutting government programs and jobs, ideas that will add to the unemployment crisis and take more “spending” money out of the economy. Unemployed people, yes, even people who once worked for the government, don’t spend. This is money that will be subtracted from the economy.

I agree that we need to cut federal spending. We need to balance the budget and pay down the massive debts we’ve accumulated. (This is a position I’ve argued for doing for most of my professional career as a columnist.) But we don’t have to do this all at once.

A presidential debt commission will release its proposals in December to balance the budget. A draft is already out there with a few big ticket ideas: Slowly raising the retirement age, making $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in higher revenue and a flatter income tax structure (and one that generates more revenue). But there are also little proposals, almost meaningless, such as ending the payments to states and tribes for abandoned mines.

One idea that’s floating around is to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. This would have terrible consequences for the working poor – especially people who live in Native American communities. The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever. It’s a tax credit that puts real money back into the pockets of families who are supporting themselves on modest incomes.

A report from the Brookings Institution looking at three decades of the tax credit and puts it this way: “The EITC has proved remarkably successful in reducing poverty. In 2003, the EITC lifted 4.4 million people in low-income, working families out of poverty, more than one-half of them children. Today, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other social program or category of programs. Without it, the poverty rate among children would be 25 percent higher.”

The tax credit has been singularly successful on American Indian reservations and in Alaska Native villages. For example: Pull up a map of where the tax credit is most used and you see Indian Country. In many Native communities more than 40 percent of the population now is eligible for this credit. Just peek at Montana’s map for an example. The areas where the EITC is most common are the state’s Indian reservations. Make no mistake about this, reducing or eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit will have a disproportionate impact on Indian Country.

It is important, over the long haul, to reign in the federal budget. But that cannot be accomplished by stripping away the programs and tax credits that actually make life better for poor, working American families. This proposal is being shopped at the very moment when government services and jobs are already being cut in those same communities.

A sad truth is that the recession doesn’t mean as much in a poor community as a rich one. When unemployment rates are already 50 percent, what difference does a point or two make?

But in this national zeal to balance the budget we should not make the situation worse. If we can make it an article of faith to not raise taxes during a recession, we should also be certain not to make life worse for American who work hard and barely earn enough to support their families.

Bring it on! Relitigating the health care reform debate

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:28:39 -0700

The election is over. Now what? What are the next steps when it comes to health care reform? Just what did the people say November 2?

As you would expect there is no agreed answers. Republicans say this election was about health care. Tea Party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said on NBC’s Meet the Press this weekend. “We have to stop the funding of Obamacare and over the next two years show the American people what the real options are to improve the system we have now.”

But President Barack Obama, In his news conference said, “I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.”

The polls are interesting. The Kaiser Family Foundation surveyed the surveys. “Over the course of the past month, at least eight well-respected polls have asked Americans whether they support the idea of repealing health reform, and” Kaiser reports, “responses have been all over the map, ranging from a high of 51 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll to a low of 26 percent in our September Kaiser Health Tracking survey. Why the wide range? After a close look at the data collected below, our take is that question wording is driving the differences. At the same time, recent polling suggests that for at least some Americans, a vote for repeal means a vote to eliminate certain provisions of the health reform law while also keeping many of its benefits, rather than representing a desire to overturn the law completely. “

But the political divide remains stark. So we are going to (as the president puts it) relitigate the health care law.

I say, bring it on. This is a debate we must have. We need to re-litigate, re-argue, re-teach, re-convince, re-cajole, and simply continue to do what ever is required to implement health care reform. We need to be clear about what health care reform is – and challenge the myths about what it is not.

This is a debate that can be won on the merits because there are so few alternatives.

The Republicans have used the word “Obamacare” to conjur up all sorts of evils, real or imagined.

To counter that, supporters of health care reform must demand a debate on specifics. It’s one thing to convince people they are against “Obamacare” because it sounds inefficient. But go line by line, program by program, and ask people what they want in a health care system.

“Should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that will help senior citizens get prescription drugs, should we go back to a situation where people with preexisting conditions can’t get health insurance, should we allow insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick even though you’ve been paying premiums,” the president said in his news conference. “I don't think that you’d have a strong vote for people saying those are provisions I want to eliminate.”

Do Republicans want to repeal the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (which was included in the larger health care package)? Or are they content to just not fund the act?

Either way this is problematic because the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is what’s called “authorizing legislation.” That means Congress still must appropriate enough money to improve the Indian Health system.

Remember during the last health care debate many Republicans in both houses complained that the Indian Health Service was the worst example of government-run care. “Don’t get sick before June,” they warned. So now, answer this, “what to you intend to do about it? Does the election mean we afford to get ill in September?”

We need this debate. We need to help people understand that the health care reform legislation – messy as it was – represents only a small, but an essential step forward. We still have a long way to go to open up our health care system for all that is also sustainable.

Re-litigate health care? Bring it on! We can win this debate on its merits because we as a nation can do better than what we have 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 new book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

We, the people, are divided by our divisions

Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0600

All election night the message was about how the people have spoken with a clear voice and returned Republicans to power.

In Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul called it the “Tea Party tidal wave.”

Or the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said “it’s clear tonight who the real winners are, that’s the American people.” He said change begins again because the “American people are demanding a new way forward.”

Sorry. I beg to differ. Division won. A Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate and White House. (And, if you want to get snippy about it, I would add a Republican-controlled Supreme Court to this list).

We, the American people, are united by our division.

The urban core of the United States remains, essentially, a base for Democrats. It’s a similar story for African American, Native American and Latino communities. On the other hand the rural West, Midwest and South remain Republican. Independent voters play the field. This time they went Republican. Last time they favored the Democrats.

Elections are one thing, governing is another. Divided government creates all sorts of problems.

This divided election continues the real differences from our leaders in how we go about solving the problems facing the country. So many of those in Congress who were willing to work across party lines (both Democrats and Republicans) were some of the first politicians defeated.

Indeed, CNN’s exit poll captured this American division well. It reported that a majority of voters did not see the Tea Party as a factor. “The percentage that said they wanted to send a message in favor of the movement (23 percent) was just a few points higher than those who said they were trying to strike a blow against it (18 percent),” CNN reported.

We love the Tea Party – unless we don’t.

The primary issue in this election was jobs. But even that issue divides us.

Many of us wanted more government, action to go about getting the economy unstuck. Others wanted and voted for less government. These were voters who said they did not want corporate bailouts – some were even willing to watch General Motors go out of business without government help. But that would have resulted in higher unemployment, not less.

It’s the same when it comes to government jobs. Many of the most conservative states – Idaho, Alaska and Nevada – would not have been as economically successful without massive federal spending on nuclear power or dams. Federal spending (or investment if you’re on the other side of the divide) created wealth.

Consider how this divided election impacts one small constituent group: American Indians and Alaska Natives. The new chairman of the House committee that will move legislation on these issues will be Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington. He opposed adding the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to last year’s health care bill. I suppose now he will be trying to include that bill in any health care repeal. On the other side of the Capitol, Washington’s Sen. Maria Cantwell will likely be the new chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. She was a staunch supporter of the Indian Health Care legislation. It will be interesting to watch these two leaders try and find common ground.

Play out this scenario of division across the board on issues ranging from how we reduce the deficit to how much we tax ourselves.

I have one small wish. We need to find a way to reach consensus on our most thorny problems. I’d like to see our political discourse employ more “if, then” language. “If we do this, then that means …” Fill in the blanks and debate the options. We may be a divided people, but we still have to figure out how to govern ourselves over our own divisions.

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 new book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Native American votes will defy election predictions

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:17:41 -0600

FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- The election is nearly a week away and predictions are cheaper than a cup of bad coffee. “We see good news for Republicans,” says The New York Times in its blog, fivethirtyeight.com “Although not necessarily better news for them than is already implied by the polling.” So Democrats say they will do better than expected. And Republicans are all but promising they will run the next government. Of course every prediction is backed by the latest polls.

But here is one prediction you won’t read in the press: Not a single poll will capture what’s going on with Indian Country voters during this election cycle. The science of polling doesn’t work very well with small population groups living in rural or isolated locations.

That’s too bad because it would be interesting and useful to know what’s in the mind of American Indian and Alaska Native voters this cycle.

Consider the race for U.S. Senator from Alaska. The only way that Lisa Murkowski returns to that office is if Alaska Native voters turn out in large numbers and write her name on the ballot. (She lost the Republican primary but is continuing her candidacy as a write-in candidate.)

The Alaska Federation of Natives last week endorsed Murkowski by acclamation at its annual convention here in Fairbanks. This was after the senator gave a keynote talk where she listed at length many of the accomplishments in Congress related to Alaska Native issues.

This represents one antidote to the so-called enthusiasm gap. If the AFN delegates can translate their organizational support into community support on Election Day, then Sen. Murkowski will be re-elected. (The Republican nominee, Joe Miller, has also tried to woo AFN support at least from individual members and the Democrat Scott McAdams promised to shake 5,000 hands at the convention in his bid for native votes.)

There is another reason for native voters to turn out in Alaska: Diane Benson. She has a remarkable biography. She is an elected delegate to the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, former president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood, and, was one of the first women truck drivers on the Trans Alaska Pipeline.

“A vote for me is a vote for saying, ‘I’m mad as hell and I want some common sense restored,’” Benson said in a recent speech.

Benson is one of two Native American candidates for a state’s second-highest office; the other is Chris Deschene running for Secretary of State in Arizona. The Navajo Nation’s election is on the same day so there is the potential for a large turnout in the state race.

What’s particularly exciting about Alaska is how Native voters are a prime audience. First, hundreds of businesses welcomed AFN to their city with sidewalk signs or with brochures posted in their windows and much of the political advertising focused on attracting the AFN voter. My favorite was a picture of hand with the name of Lisa Murkowski written on it; an easy reminder that voters can take to the polls.

At AFN there were rides from the convention center to the Division of Elections Office to make early voting even easier.

Then, there’s good reason for that native outreach. “It’s estimated that Alaska Natives constitute 14 percent of the statewide adult population. If all Natives voted during a normal turnout year (in which 55 percent of non-Natives voted), approximately 25 percent of the electorate at the polls would be Native,” according to the Alaska Native Vote Web site. “This voting bloc would be more powerful than the Republican vote (24 percent), the Democratic vote (16 percent), and the non-partisan vote (14 percent) in Alaska. “

There are other locations in Indian Country that should get the same sort of attention as Alaska.

In South Dakota, for example, the Republicans have made it their mission to limit American Indian voting. The latest is what the state party calls a “food for vote scheme.” A party press release says, “offering food or anything else of value for voting is against the law.”

I can’t tell you how much food I’ve eaten at voter events over the years – sponsored by both parties. This is a silly issue.

But I know the real fear: It’s fry bread power. A piece of bread in the hands of a voter could make a real difference.

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 new book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.