Your Tax Dollars at Work: Foxwoods Casino Wants More Federal Grants

[Dan Druff]

Before I begin, I want to tell a familiar story.

A large, well-known gambling operation, overseen by shady management and regulators, overspends during the "good times" around 2008, then gives out large, overly-generous distributions to its numerous owners. Eventually it finds itself broke and the federal government has to bail them out.

I'm talking about Full Tilt, right?

Wrong.

I'm talking about Foxwoods, a large Indian casino in Connecticut.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...e-federal-aid/

They have taken plenty of federal money already, and now they are pursuing even more federal grants. Remember, these are grants, not loans. They don't have to be paid back. It's free money. The Pequot tribe (which owns Foxwoods) received $1 million in 2008, and increasing grants each year, hitting $2.7 million in 2011. They keep asking for more and more.

Even more offensive is the fact that, at one point, Foxwoods paid out $100,000 anually to each adult member of the Pequot tribe. This is all too similar to the Full Tilt distributions, which largely sank the company. Foxwoods no longer pays distributions to its tribe members, but it's unbelievable that they could qualify for federal grants after distributing such money in recent years.

The problem is that all recognized Indian tribes are eligible for federal grants, even if they also own profitable casinos. The grants don't directly go to the casinos, but rather go toward health care and other necessities for poor tribe members. That on the surface sounds okay, until you realize that the tribes were allowed to operate casinos for self-sufficiency -- exactly for the purpose of eliminating the need for the government to take care of them. The Pequots and other casino-owning tribes are getting the best of both worlds.

Thomas Weissmuller, who was chief judge of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court until 2011, said that near the end of his tenure the tribal council said they had distributed too much money to members and urged department leaders to pursue more federal grants. He said there was resistance from some council members, who raised questions about the effects on sovereignty, but he was personally encouraged to pursue grants by officials including the tribal chairman, Rodney Butler.

Weissmuller said he was not comfortable seeking such assistance for the tribal court system because most of the issues it dealt with were related to the casino, which is essentially a commercial enterprise.

"A billion-dollar gaming enterprise should fully fund the tribal government," said Weissmuller, who said that he was forced out of the job by tribal officials who told him he did not appear to have the tribe's interests at heart on other matters.

Indian gaming is such a joke for so many reasons.

[Shizzmoney]

When Boston gets its casino (rumor is a Caesar's at Suffolk Downs), Foxwoods will die. It has barely survived while it's increased its huge debts due to a myriad of reasons......the most important being fail.

They even want to take on more debt to buy a casino lot in Milford - they are up for approval in MA. There is no way any regulatory agency should give this group a dime of taxpayer money, neither mind the ability to have a casino, after crap like this. They in the end, I believe, will be bought out whole by the MGM brand by 2024.

The tribes in general are in major ad hoc, and unlike Gary Loveman and Caesar's, the majority do not have the pull in the market, either.

[kaartman]

Indian gaming is such a joke for so many reasons.

I've continued to listen to and enjoy your show after first tuning in a month or so ago to hear about UB and the Makar files, and I will continue to listen, but I have to say that I strongly disagreed with your rant about Indian gaming in the latest episode and the apparent blame you attach for this state of affairs on the tribes themselves. To complain that Indian tribes are better off then the rest of us because they receive special treatment and to say this is "unfair" is frankly offensive, even though I am not an Indian.

In spite of the quote from the former Connecticut lawmaker in the article and the same idea that you parroted on the show, Indian gaming did not come about as a result of our benevolent government deciding that this was a way for tribes to earn revenue and rid themselves of poverty. Please. It came about because the tribes, who are preconstitutional sovereign nations (I can hear you laughing as I type this...typical response, sad as that is), unilaterally asserted their right to operate gaming establishments on their own land free of state interference. The tribes did this themselves. Only after the Supreme Court mostly affirmed this right (California v. Cabazon) did Congress realize this wasn't going away, so they frantically enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in order to have some control over the situation. IGRA, in fact, actually limits the ability of tribes to become economically self-sufficient by forcing tribes to reach agreements with the states, which agreements basically mean casino revenues will be shared with the states and local communities (the tribes often receive some sort of exclusivity guarantee in return, but little else). While a few Indian casinos around the country have been wildly successful, especially during the boom years, the majority make very modest profits and some actually lose money. The myth of the "rich" Indian is for the most part exactly that...a myth. Go onto almost any Indian reservation, including ones with a casino, and you will find extreme cases of unemployment, poverty, health issues, and general hardship. The idea that these people should not receive federal grants because the tribal government operates a casino is beyond ridiculous. Not only did most treaties promise perpetual support in return for ceding away literally millions of acres of aboriginal homelands (It's obvious who got the better deal here.), but most casinos simply aren't profitable enough to cure all of the serious problems on the reservations that our government largely created in the first place. Regardless, the Mashantucket Pequots have as much right to apply for federal grants aimed at helping Indian tribes as any other tribe, and they'd be foolish not to do so. I detest a lot of what our federal government spends our tax dollars on, but tribal assistance is not one of those things. Again, the federal government has a solemn obligation to provide such assistance based on past promises.

Indian gaming is an incredibly complex issue involving history, law, and politics, and I cannot possibly provide my full viewpoint here. Mostly I just wanted to briefly provide a different perspective to an issue that is very important to me (I work with Indian tribes on issues outside of gaming). You may not like the state of Indian gaming and feel like it's a "joke," but the tribes did not create the existing framework. They are trying the best they can to survive in an environment that was mostly set up against them.

I'll end with this: "Great nations, like great men, should keep their word." -- Justice Hugo Black

[Dan Druff]

I don't put the blame on the Indian tribes themselves. Of course it is likely they are going to apply for federal aid if they think they can get it.

I am also aware that there is a lot of poverty in all American Indian tribes, including ones with successful casinos. But that's where a lot of my problem lies. Regardless of who originated the idea of Indian gaming, it was approved by the US government with the intention of eliminating poverty and making these tribes self-sufficient -- or at least the ones that are running casinos.

That has not happened. A small percentage of Indians have gotten very rich from these casinos, while the vast majority suffer in poverty. There was no real structure or framework to make sure that Indian gaming benefited the community as a whole.

I have read many exposes on the world of Indian gaming, and let's just say it's been very eye-opening.

The fact that companies like Caesar's can set up shop in an "Indian" casino in California should be an indicator that this whole thing isn't working as intended.

With every well-intentioned law that makes exceptions for certain groups, there are always loopholes to be exploited.

In California, you have to be an Indian tribe to operate a casino with house-banked games and slot machines. If this opportunity is only being afforded to Indian tribes, then it had better be for real and tangible charitable purposes. If it ends up simply enriching a select few and allows Caesar's to set up a California "Total Rewards" casino, then the spirit of the law is being violated, and it's time for some real reform.

It bothers me that a tribe with a casino the size of Foxwoods was still able to apply for federal grants. That should have been disallowed for all tribes with operating casinos of any decent size.

[lvpkr1009]

It bothers me that a tribe with a casino the size of Foxwoods was still able to apply for federal grants. That should have been disallowed for all tribes with operating casinos of any decent size.

Have to disagree with the premise that a tribe SHOULDNT be able to apply for a federal grants just because they run a profitable (or seemingly profitable) casino. Would you also extend this to other businesses or individuals that they shouldn't be allowed to apply for grants just because THEY are profitable or seemingly have the money to not need them??

[Dan Druff]

It bothers me that a tribe with a casino the size of Foxwoods was still able to apply for federal grants. That should have been disallowed for all tribes with operating casinos of any decent size.

Have to disagree with the premise that a tribe SHOULDNT be able to apply for a federal grants just because they run a profitable (or seemingly profitable) casino. Would you also extend this to other businesses or individuals that they shouldn't be allowed to apply for grants just because THEY are profitable or seemingly have the money to not need them??

This is an exception because Indian tribes are given a special exception to run casinos (where non-Indians can't) in an attempt to end their dependency upon the federal government. If the casino is failing, I am fine with them still receiving federal aid. If it is profitable beyond what they otherwise would be receiving in federal grants, they should not be eligible for anything further.

[Hockey Guy]

Have to disagree with the premise that a tribe SHOULDNT be able to apply for a federal grants just because they run a profitable (or seemingly profitable) casino. Would you also extend this to other businesses or individuals that they shouldn't be allowed to apply for grants just because THEY are profitable or seemingly have the money to not need them??

This is an exception because Indian tribes are given a special exception to run casinos (where non-Indians can't) in an attempt to end their dependency upon the federal government. If the casino is failing, I am fine with them still receiving federal aid. If it is profitable beyond what they otherwise would be receiving in federal grants, they should not be eligible for anything further.

There's only one problem with your argument & you've already admitted it:

That has not happened. A small percentage of Indians have gotten very rich from these casinos, while the vast majority suffer in poverty.

[Dan Druff]

This is an exception because Indian tribes are given a special exception to run casinos (where non-Indians can't) in an attempt to end their dependency upon the federal government. If the casino is failing, I am fine with them still receiving federal aid. If it is profitable beyond what they otherwise would be receiving in federal grants, they should not be eligible for anything further.

There's only one problem with your argument & you've already admitted it:

That has not happened. A small percentage of Indians have gotten very rich from these casinos, while the vast majority suffer in poverty.

This has happened because:

1) Tiny tribes are granted rights to casinos, enriching their members while doing nothing for the Native American community as a whole

2) As in the Foxwoods case, they mismanage and blow the money through stupid distributions, and don't set aside proper funding for the community, which was the whole purpose of it in the first place.

[Hockey Guy]

There's only one problem with your argument & you've already admitted it:

That has not happened. A small percentage of Indians have gotten very rich from these casinos, while the vast majority suffer in poverty.

This has happened because:

1) Tiny tribes are granted rights to casinos, enriching their members while doing nothing for the Native American community as a whole

2) As in the Foxwoods case, they mismanage and blow the money through stupid distributions, and don't set aside proper funding for the community, which was the whole purpose of it in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with what you're saying to an extent. Corruption is rampant within native leadership in both Canada & the USA. As long as they are allowed self-goverment nothing will ever change. They will always(hopefully I'm wrong) have self-government since it is in their treaty rights & i don't see them changing that anytime soon. It's a vicious cycle that only exaserbates the poverty problem in the native communities.

I've always held the opinion that they should change control of the finances(tribal council) from one family group to another every 5 years to give every family group a shot to get rich. Hopefully by the time it gets back around to your family group you hadn't spent all the money you embezzelled earlier. Of course this depends on the premise that they wouldn't totally fuck over their own family which we know they would since this is one thing they've learned very well from the white man.

[Shizzmoney]

That has not happened. A small percentage of Indians have gotten very rich from these casinos, while the vast majority suffer in poverty. There was no real structure or framework to make sure that Indian gaming benefited the community as a whole.

Funny how that always works?

[kaartman]

Indian tribes are given a special exception to run casinos (where non-Indians can't) in an attempt to end their dependency upon the federal government. If the casino is failing, I am fine with them still receiving federal aid. If it is profitable beyond what they otherwise would be receiving in federal grants, they should not be eligible for anything further.

As I already stated, this is ass-backwards. They weren't "given" anything; they're exercising their inherent sovereign rights. If anything, Congress limited those rights by requiring tribes to reach compacts with the states and give them $ for nothing (or little) in return.

[kaartman]

1) Tiny tribes are granted rights to casinos, enriching their members while doing nothing for the Native American community as a whole

This is utter ignorance. See above re: the claim that tribes are being given special treatment. Also, have you actually tried to find out what prosperous gaming tribes have done for the tribal community as a whole? The answer is obvious: no. There are so many examples of gaming tribes supporting the community as a whole that I couldn't even begin to try to list them. You're just shooting from the hip here based on your naive perceptions (that are admittedly perpetuated in the mainstream media).

[kaartman]

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with what you're saying to an extent. Corruption is rampant within native leadership in both Canada & the USA. As long as they are allowed self-goverment nothing will ever change. They will always(hopefully I'm wrong) have self-government since it is in their treaty rights & i don't see them changing that anytime soon. It's a vicious cycle that only exaserbates the poverty problem in the native communities.

I've always held the opinion that they should change control of the finances(tribal council) from one family group to another every 5 years to give every family group a shot to get rich. Hopefully by the time it gets back around to your family group you hadn't spent all the money you embezzelled earlier. Of course this depends on the premise that they wouldn't totally fuck over their own family which we know they would since this is one thing they've learned very well from the white man.

Corruption only exists in tribal governments? You can't be serious. Let's take away self-government rights and break past promises because whitey knows what's best for the Indian. Treaty rights be damned. It never ends...

[kaartman]

By the way, I'm actually at a conference right right now listening to a panel speak about the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and I thought to recheck this thread. Just a little impassioned at the moment, although I 100% astand by what I say here.

[Hockey Guy]

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with what you're saying to an extent. Corruption is rampant within native leadership in both Canada & the USA. As long as they are allowed self-goverment nothing will ever change. They will always(hopefully I'm wrong) have self-government since it is in their treaty rights & i don't see them changing that anytime soon. It's a vicious cycle that only exaserbates the poverty problem in the native communities.

I've always held the opinion that they should change control of the finances(tribal council) from one family group to another every 5 years to give every family group a shot to get rich. Hopefully by the time it gets back around to your family group you hadn't spent all the money you embezzelled earlier. Of course this depends on the premise that they wouldn't totally fuck over their own family which we know they would since this is one thing they've learned very well from the white man.

Corruption only exists in tribal governments? You can't be serious. Let's take away self-government rights and break past promises because whitey knows what's best for the Indian. Treaty rights be damned. It never ends...

Where the fuck did I say that. I didn't. There's corruption wherever there is money involved. BTW, my second paragraph is slightly tounge-in-cheek.

[kaartman]

Corruption only exists in tribal governments? You can't be serious....

Where the fuck did I say that. I didn't. There's corruption wherever there is money involved. BTW, my second paragraph is slightly tounge-in-cheek.

Fair enough. But you definitely say you hope they lose self-governing powers because of it, and I'm pretty confident you wouldn't say the U.S.A. or any state should be stripped of sovereignty and their ability to self-govern due to corruption. To me you implied that corruption is somehow unique to tribal governments or at least worse in tribal governments. This is simply not true. Of course there is some corruption, Indians are human beings afterall, but the vast majority of tribal governments have their members' best interests in mind (I have worked closely with dozens of tribal governments, by the way).

There are about 500 Indian tribes in the U.S., the broad generalizations in this thread and elsewhere just drive me crazy, that's all.