Bloomberg -insensitive Native American Indians/cowboys

People who try to get something done in life, or even merely express an opinion, often offend some members of their audience.

I won't presume to know whether Bloomberg meant to offend, or "should have known better".

I will state that I think the alternative (never speaking your mind, or doing anything out of fear you may offend someone) is far worse.

Even if he meant no harm by his comments, Bloomberg should apologize.

....living in a diverse place requires delicacy. Lots of it.

(I choose to opt out of the issue of whether cigarette sales by Native Americans should be taxed. I can't say I know much about the issue.)

The politicians are not backing down Re: cigarette taxes

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100826/FREE/100829835/1072

Anyone think this is a big enough issue that it will cause a resurgence in the American Indian Movement?

http://www.aimovement.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

....perhaps only in New York State?

Note: I still remain completely ignorant of the issues involved in soveignty vis a vis the ability to tax cigarettes. I'm seeing if anyone wants to make predictions about how large this issue will get before:
someone backs down
a compromise is reached
there is violence.

ditto, I also want to skip the law discussion.

....but I know that the two sides percieve the issues as being radically different, and that this source of funding (profit on untaxed cigarettes) is huge for many folks who live on the reservations.

and that battles like this one in RI aren't exactly rare:
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-stores/4479478-1.html

Presumably one avoids battle by signing a "compact" that stipulates prices and such (at least that what I infer the above article), because the law is vague enough that negotiations must take place.

so, we have a few things in play:
1. The two groups don't like each other and have fought in the past.

2. The law seems to be not just vague, but full of vagaries.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vagaries

3. We have a state that is not only desperate for money, but also might genuinely dislike people smoking cigarettes.

Any predictions as to what is going to happen:
A Compact is reached after tense negotiations?

Violence as a result of a law enforcement action?

The Indians win a round and get to sell untaxed cigarettes while being unbothered?

I completely agree with you re: the soda tax.

However, they have done a much better job of convincing me they genuinely don't like cigarettes. The advertsing campaign with the guy talking thru his neck and the lady with the missing fingers comes to mind. ...but I'm sure it's a little of both "hey, we need to raise money. Let's tax something and say we are doing it because it is bad for them!". It isn't like they are going to spend this money on cigarette prevention (or in the case of the soda tax: a campaign that says "please drink water, it is good for you!").

I think the Native American sovereignty confusion has a lot to do with Federal vs State confusion.

The tribes feel they were granted sovereignty by the feds.
The states think they have the ability to control what happens in their state.

These two factors create giant confusion re: the staes ability to tax income, cigarettes, alcohol, regulate gambling, etc.

I predict the conversation around cigarettes is something like this:

Government to tribes: We will let you sell cigarettes without giving us taxes, but we want a cut. You have to give us something.

Tribe to government: No, we don't.

A carton of cigarettes is something like $100 in NYC, and $35.00 in the southern states.

If the Indians get to sell them for $75 + 5 shipping, they could make a killing. $40 a carton.

Ah, arbitrage.

One thing to keep in mind is that the state has securitized its interest in the Tobacco Settlement funds received from cigarette manufacturers. Short version is that the states sued tobacco makers for the costs related to healthcare that the states have paid out as a result of smoking. The states won and they received a huge settlement. The settlement amounts were directly tied to projections of how many cigarettes would continue to be sold by tobacco companies.

Many states then issued bonds to be paid back from the revenue stream of settlement $s which are paid out yearly like an annuity. The bond holders required that a portion of the money received as a result of the bonds would be spent on anti-smoking campaigns while the rest could be spent on anything including put into the general fund of the state to help balance its budget.

So what does this all mean? Well the states put on these really aggressive anti-smoking campaigns paid for by dedicated dollars that the state CAN'T use for any other purpose. At the same time, they need to make sure that the numbers of smokers don't decrease so drastically that the revenue streams which support their bonds go away. Which is why you get a state that both runs really horrible scared-straight type anti-smoking campaigns while allowing the sale of loosies at bodegas and corner stores all over the city.

Illegal cigarettes off the reservations are in direct competition with legal cigarettes and threaten that revenue stream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/nyregion/01cigarettes.html

The authors seem to predict court battles, but not violence.

then they lose a round

Judges Let New York State Tax Indian Cigarette Sales
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/nyregion/15smoking.html

Seems to me that American attitudes towards Native American sovereignty haven't changed much since the 1800's.

That is, we acknowledge that they are a sovereign nation with all rights of such a nation, until we decide they have something we want, and then we decide that they aren't really sovereign at all, or that their sovereignty doesn't matter.

If they have land that we want, we take it, and relocate them somewhere undesirable and far away.

If they have profits from selling cigarettes, and refuse to pay us a tax on their sales that would vitiate their profits, we find a supposedly legal justification to impose the tax, and, lo and behold, our courts say we have the right to do so.

If I were a Native American tribe with a successful casino, I'd be thinking hard about selling a half-interest in the casino to Saudi Arabia, or some other country the US doesn't want to mess with.

Isn't consistency great?

Perhaps you misunderstood: I suggested that we have indeed been consistent in our prioritizing of our own desires over any respect for the sovereignty of Native American tribes.