How Should We Handle Taxation On New Trust Lands?

Non-Indian buyers who flock to reservations for alcohol and tobacco products technically are required to pay the same taxes as at off-reservation businesses. They seldom do, however.

It’s the subject of a long dispute that pits the tribes against state and local governments that are losing tax revenues - as well as the off-reservation businesses that have a tough time competing.

Now, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma has introduced legislation that would halt the spread of the tax disparity. U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook’s legislation would require tribes to negotiate with local governments over whether the tax would have to be collected on additional land going into federal trust for the tribes. If local entities were to dig in their heels, the land wouldn’t be put in trust.

Tribal representatives say it’s an encroachment on their sovereignty. Istook and his allies say it’s just fairness.

Often, the trade that’s generated by reservations’ smoke shops, gambling establishments and other attractions provides a hedge against the economic distress most reservations endure.

Istook’s bill, co-sponsored by Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane, would not affect existing lands, only land put in trust in the future.

Is there an equitable way to resolve this so the governments and non-reservation businesses come out OK, and the tribal members have a reasonable economic foundation, too?

Clinton, Congress playing base or fiddling around?

For a while, it looked as though the nation had devised a way to scale back military installations that was reasonably insulated from partisanship and pork-barreling.

A bipartisan commission was supposed to come up with a list the president could accept or return for changes. But once Congress received the list, it had to vote on it as an inseparable unit.

Now, President Clinton wants to revive the process but Republicans in Congress say he played political favoritism last time around, so no deal. Pentagon officials want to close more bases so they can free up money to buy new weapons, but the partisan showdown makes it unclear whether a new commission will be created anytime soon.

If this standoff means we’ve closed all the bases we’re going to for now, is that because we need those we still have - or that the need for modernized weapons isn’t worth jeopardizing the re-election of members of Congress from districts with military bases?

, DataTimes MEMO: “Bagpipes” appears Tuesdays and Thursdays. To respond, call Cityline at 458-8800, category 9881, from a Touch-Tone phone; or send a fax to 459-5098 or e-mail to dougf@spokesman.com. You also can leave Doug Floyd a message at 459-5577, extension 5466.