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)

You are correct on the Sho-Bans for past sales, I concede that. However, currently no state taxes are being collected from any sales to any tribally owned station. All monies for state taxes are going into a "trust" account and will be meted out to the winning parties once a legal determination has been made by the courts (above Idaho).

Yes, the Sho-Bans do maintain some of their roads, but not all. IIRC The state is required to maintain the state and federal highways through the reservation. Local roads are being maintained by the tribe. The state does get federal matching funds (only on taxes it collected - tribal sales are discluded - that's where I got the unfunded mandate part - maybe not the right term) for roads.

I don't think the other tribes maintain any of their roads, but I'm not certain.

The issue is not to tax the tribes, but sales to non-tribal members. I agree it's a mess. I'll also agree that maybe it needs to be looked at in a different way. I'm conservative, and agree with the fact we need to maintain the treaties. What I don't agree with, is that the tribes seem to want the perks of the roads without paying for them. If the state can't collect fuel tax on fuel sales on tribal land, then maybe cost to repair the roads should fall on the fed and the tribes with no state funds.

I would be in favor of that.

The biggest problem is that the State took such a militant position on it in the beginning, that they pissed off the tribes. There could have been a really good agreement made between gentlemen that would have been good for all.