Wisconsin Indians
are at the foot of the socio-economic strata.
Indians, comprise only 0.5% of the entire population
of the U.S. they being the smallest minority in
the U.S, are still at the bottom of practically
every economic disparity. As a means to alleviate
their poverty, gaming came as a development and
a consequence of sovereignty of Wisconsin Indians,
acknowledged by the courts after decades of Indian
activism and frequent episodes of robbery and
genocides. The native nations were finally able
to set their own rules and regulations to regulate
their tribal members. Tribal casino success stems
from this ability to captivate a non-Indian entertainment
desire in areas where states prohibit it.
According to the statistics on Economic Impact
Of Indian Gaming “Indian gaming has become
the industry that tribal governments can use to
overturn 150 years of federal neglect. As of February,
1997, the National Indian Gaming Commission reported
there were 115 tribes with gaming class III operations
and 164 tribe/state compacts in 24 states. Less
than one-third of the tribes in the U.S. have
gaming operations. Indian Gaming is only 5% of
the entire Gaming Industry. The Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) mandates tribal governments,
not individuals, can have gaming operations. Thus
the entire proceeds of the industry go back to
fund tribal government programs, just as state
revenue funds state programs. States use lottery
proceeds much the same way tribes use gaming proceeds.
Indian gaming is providing a means to self-sufficiency
for Tribal Nations, and is also creating jobs
and economic activity in local non-Indian communities
and states where tribal gaming operations are
located. Over 120,000 direct jobs and 160,000
indirect jobs have been created nationwide. Gaming
holds some hope for reducing poverty, but it is
definitely not a treat as the limited and perhaps
transitory success of gaming cannot quickly render
null and void centuries of botched economics.
Indian casinos are present in large numbers and
many are not even listed. According to the statistics,
“Indian gaming represents only about 5%
of all gambling in the United States and only
a third of tribes currently operate gaming facilities.
About 40% of gambling revenues come from state
lotteries and the remaining 55% is dominated by
commercial entities in Nevada and New Jersey”
(Lawrence, 1995). These gaming zones offer jobs
for tribal members, food and shelter for on-reservation
members and a buy-back of bigger land bases. Wisconsin
tribes operate 15 Class III gaming facilities
with a total payroll of just over $68 million.
For some 3,000 employees, their casino job is
the family's sole source of income. If those same
employees were placed on state unemployment compensation,
it would cost the state more than $27 million.
Procurement by tribal gaming employees of daily
items support more than 900 indirect jobs, created
by the increased sales that local businesses are
surviving upon. 17 percent of the population that
visits the casinos comes from out of state and
an additional 53 percent come from outside the
immediate casino area. This also leads to greater
than before tourism generating nearly $18 million
dollars in state income taxes per year along with
a drop in welfare costs.
The tribal governments, similar to any other
state government, utilize profits that gaming
generates for the purposes that include law enforcement,
education, economic development, tribal courts
and infrastructure improvement. The Indian nations
are using gaming profits to fund social service
programs, open hotels, restaurants, gas stations,
and flower shops; to fund retirement programs
for their tribal elders, scholarships, health
care clinics, new roads, new sewer and water systems,
adequate housing, chemical dependency treatment
programs and dialysis clinics, among others. In
Minnesota, roughly 37% of the tribal gaming employees
had received state or federal welfare assistance
prior to their employment and another 31% were
drawing unemployment compensation. Daniel Tucker,
chairman for the Sycuan band of Mission Indians,
points out that “Indian gaming not only
reduces the burden on tax-funded social programs
but it now increases available reserves”
(Lawrence, 1995).
Although gambling has created escalation in job
opportunities and state revenues, a divergence
of large amounts of spending to state and tribally
sponsored gaming enterprises has had a negative
effect on other commerce, specifically the restaurant,
entertainment and lodging industries. To take
Minnesota as an example, the report claimed that
“business volume has actually fallen by
20% to 50% at restaurants located within a 30-mile
radius of casinos with food service. And at $558
per capita in yearly wages, gambling expenditures
in 1990 exceeded such categories of retail spending
in Minnesota as appliance, clothing, electronic,
home furnishing and shoe stores, as well as hotels”
(Lawrence, 1995). Besides the fallen business
volume of other forms of commerce, gambling has
expanded and saturated the market. Despite the
oppositions and confrontations, the Indian-run
casinos are exceedingly popular with the general
masses. They are still, nonetheless generally
considered as meticulously well-established enterprises
that are paving ways to facilitate their native
nation, while also safeguarding their legacy even
as they progress life.
While some tribes have earned millions, others
remain mired in poverty. The problems of the Indian
reservations include a 24% poverty rate, a suicide
rate more than twice that of all other nonwhites,
and the highest high school dropout rate among
all non-whites. Many Indians live on remote lands
with no resources. The federal government has
reduced economic assistance by two-thirds over
the last 15 years. Unemployment still averages
45%. In the late 1980s, an impermanent spate of
Indian triumphs has left some astringent trace.
While some acknowledged tribes won the power to
run high-stakes gambling, others are still rolling
snake eyes. As a consequence, is a minority became
fabulously well heeled, and some financial paybacks
began to get accumulate to impoverished reservations.
But bitterness got augmented amongst the acknowledged
and un-acknowledged tribes (Economic Impacts of
Wisconsin…, 1993).
In relation to the sovereignty of the native
nation, it is generally thought that the reason
for their ongoing progress is harmony and unity.
It is the unity of reason, unity of perseverance,
unity of endeavor and firmness. In retrospect,
as one try to turn back the pages of time, one
may comprehend that all foremost accomplishments
of Wisconsin Indians were brought about unanimously.
The major conquest, that the Indian people take
pleasure in at this theatre of war, was the result
of a incorporated effort among Indian people (Cozzetto,
1995).
Tribal sovereignty is to be sheltered for the
present and for the coming future to bring with
it a continuing character for the protection of
Indian affairs. Tribal governments and tribal
members may participate in negotiations regarding
policy making in an effort to protect tribal sovereignty.
With each challenge posed toward individual tribes,
measures for protecting sovereignty of the tribal
members should be formulated and a united front
line supported. This united front would not only
commandeer the individual privileges of tribes
as mentioned or specified in their agreement,
but would on the contrary uphold the basic legal
constructs of tribal sovereignty (Magnuson, 1994).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires
states to reach a deal with tribes seeking gaming
compacts. It is a legal agreement that summarizes
the gaming operation, including the kind of games
offered, the magnitude of the service, betting
limits, regulation, security, etc. While a numerous
states have negotiated with tribes and are now
munching their way through the economic benefits
of Indian gaming, other states have refused to
negotiate, thus violating federal law and ignoring
the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In this
case, if states refuse to negotiate, tribes can
demand the appointment of a mediator from the
federal court. If the mediator then fails to bring
both sides together within a certain time frame,
the mediator chooses the last best offer of either
the tribe or the state (Magnuson, 1994).
It is a general consensus that that states should
have no input whatsoever in decisions pertaining
to tribal facilities. On the contrary, it is generally
proclaimed that the process is racist and shields
the state's own sweepstake arrangements or monopoly.
|