Replies

I have nothing against keeping the treaties. Read my post #7. The tribes in Idaho don't pay state fuel tax on fuel sold on their reservations by tribally owned stations. They undercut the stations near them who have to pay the state tax. Over 90% of the sales at the tribal station are to non-tribal members. The state is federally mandated to maintain the roads on the tribal lands and yet cannot collect fuel taxes from these tribal station sales. Do the words "unfunded mandate" mean anything to you?

Actually, I have two issues with your statements, and I will address each accordingly. :0)

Issue 1: The tribes don't pay the state fule tax. Wrong. A perfect example is the Shoshone-Bannock tribes, who send on average 750,000 dollars in fuel taxes to the state each year.

Issue 2: The state is federally mandated to maintain the roads on the tribal lands. Wrong - Again, with the Shoshone-Bannock tribes as an example, they pay for the maintenance of their own roads with revenue they generate from cigarette sales.

Issue 3: Do the words "unfunded mandate" mean anything to you? Yes, they mean a lot to me, but in this instance it is not applicable.

I hope we all have learned something here this morning.

:0)

The tribes in Idaho don't pay state fuel tax on fuel sold on their reservations by tribally owned stations. They undercut the stations near them who have to pay the state tax.

It sounds like your stations have a government problem that the tribes do not, the solution is not to tax the Indians. If I am taxed too much the solution to my problem is not to tax you more for "fairness".

If you do not believe that the roads on the reservations should be funded (and that may be a very valid point) then the fault lies in Washington and not with the tribes. The solution would be to get Washington to end the mandate (or fund it if its a federal treaty obligation) rather than tax the Indians to pay for the mandate.