Federal Subsidies: Constructive or Destructive - Essay Example

identification (all above optional – if you need them) Topic Should the federal government continue to provide the U.S.'s largely impoverished Native American reservations with financial assistance? Or should the government instead pursue an alternative strategy, such as land privatization? Title Federal Subsidies: Constructive or Destructive? On the level of rationality and good sense which a capitalist mindset would normally engage, it appears that the Native American reservations are an example of the old adage that to give a man a fish a day is to make him dependent and to limit his potential. Teaching him to fish is to make him independent and in the true sense, to help him. This represents the dilemma of the Native American reservations, where individuals, families and tribes are supported by financial aid from the federal government, and have become so dependent on this aid that in many cases, the conditions of life on these reservations is untenable. Not only is the system of financial aid economically difficult to maintain, it is also not in the best interests of those communities. A proposal might be to stem the aid, and to allow individual communities, and even individuals, to be allowed to own the land they live on and hence make them responsible for their own sustenance. Self-governance in the political sense and more economic responsibility may very well be a solution. The United States Federal Government has since the 1800s been obligated to the Native American. In various treaties, agreements and contracts of exchange, traditionally Native American land was ceded by the tribal leaders to the governments of the day, so that the expansion of European influence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries could be as rapid and widespread as it was. The consistent promise in all of these exchanges was that the government would continue to protect the rights of the Native Americans in good faith and that the Native Americans would continue to be self-governing within their own spheres of influence. Theoretically, Native Americans today maintain that right to self government within the United States. It is, however, only on the established reservations that these rights are allowed. On reservations, tribes possess the right to form their own government; to enforce laws; to levy taxes; to license and regulate economic activities; even to exclude persons from tribal territories. The tribal governments are restricted only in the ways that states are restricted – in effect the reservation government structures are allowed the same rights as state government structures theoretically. In addition laws exist to prevent the individual states from interfering in the self-government of tribal lands. Politically it is simple for the Federal Government to claim that it is honoring its obligations, therefore. In the reality of day-to-day life, however, this apparent political will does not count for much. Historically, as noted, reservations were established to protect the right of Native Americans to self government. Currently, though, only about 800 000 native Americans continue to live on such reservations. The balance of people defining themselves as Native American – about 2.4 million – live in mainstream American society. Native Americans on reservations or trust land remain the poorest and least healthy in America, with high incidences of infant mortality, suicide and alcoholism. Approximately half of all Native Americans nationally live below the poverty line (Basset, 2008). The right to political self-government does not influence the reality of a population unable to sustain itself within the reservations, and living on the very edges of society outside the reservations. It could be argued that such conditions are the direct result of financial aid. The dependence created instills a lack of motivation and self-reliance in the individual. A sense of having to receive education, food and housing from the government because of historical obligations may de-motivate and undercut the potential within these communities and cause lack of development. With current fiscal reform and debate regarding the necessity for government spending to be cut, the subsidy of Native American reservations is also being considered at a federal level. A number of Native American programs are seen as likely to be deeply cut. What the government has done is reduce Native Americans to a condition of absolute dependency on reservations – food subsidies, basic health care and housing continue to enable these communities to survive. Planned budgets cuts would further impoverish these communities. Cuts in welfare spending for poorer families outside the reservations will affect Native American families as much as any other family receiving aid. It is, however, not as simple as insisting that the Native Americans take control of their own destinies, and live on their own privately owned land, so that they are able to break the cycle of poverty. The United States Commission on Civil Rights reported in 2005 that financial support for Native Americans was disproportionately lower in the areas of law enforcement, health care and education than it was for all other populations. With the consequent lower levels of education, lawlessness and health, it is probable that some communities and individuals would find it difficult to muster the human resources to make the required change. Owning the land on which they live is unlikely to serve as the impetus to solve the problems embedded in these communities. Current levels of financial grant, it seems, are not serving to provide the levels of education, healthcare or other services required to develop the human resource in these communities that would enable even a gradual move toward independence from state aid. Within some of these communities, it also appears that the leadership required to mobilize the populations toward self-betterment also do not exist. The historical government of these communities has been eroded over time by government policy. Where once tribal leadership was clearly defined, and the relationships between members of the tribe and the leaders were mutually beneficial, the traditional way of life could be maintained among these communities. With the political impositions of the last three centuries on the tribes by federal governments, this structure has all but disappeared. Added to the federal government’s oversights – the standards of education and other services available to Americans at large are not available on such reservations – these communities have been placed in a position of extreme disadvantage. A further problem exists in the provision of aid through the established organizations. For example the Minority Business Development Agency was established in 1969 to provide management assistance and technical support to minority-owned businesses. In 2008, its budget, provided by the federal state, was $29 million. One of its primary functions is to run Native American Business Development Centers across the United States. But of the $29 million available in 2008, only $12 million went to the business centers – by implication even less money to the Native American Business Development Centers, as other minority groups are also serviced by this organization. By far the bulk of the money, indeed the balance, went to wages for the employees of the federal organization, and an excessive $6 million went to the administration costs of the organization headquarters in Washington. It is clear that the systems in place to aid the Native American populations to achieve financial independence are flawed, and that their effectiveness is certainly limited. Examples of positive strategies to improve the conditions on reservations do exist, though. The Seminole Tribe of Florida established The Seminole Tribe Inc. in 1957, to promote business development among its people. The corporation has community members as shareholders, and operates various businesses. The gaming industry component of this company is important and the financial gains made by the company ensure the betterment of the entire community. To a large degree, the rights of the tribe to self-government are recognized and upheld by the State of Florida. The Makah tribe, in Washington State, is involved in attempts to buy back the land that separates their current reservation sites. They are aiming to expand the revenue they generate through the already successful timber venture. Their intention is also to become less dependent on the subsidy and aid that they receive from federal government. In order to create the conditions in which the federal government would be able to stop any financial aid to the Native American reservations, more than just the privatization of land and the provision of self government to these communities are required. The aid provided has to be effectively used, within a strategic program that improves the social conditions – education, health and services – on the reservations. The traditional structures of leadership in these communities must be reestablished so that members of these communities can take initiatives collectively to start self-help projects and economic plans to work toward independence. The unnecessary bureaucracy inherent in aid organizations must be rationalized, to make the provision of aid to the people who need it possible, and to ensure that actual technological and educational support is given to potential businesspeople on reservations. The models for improvement of the conditions on reservations can be found – there are areas in which communities have taken the economic and social initiative and managed their own governance and economic welfare. These models should be transferred, with the help of federal government, into more and more areas where reservations flounder. Expert assistance, directed social interventions and re-education, and honesty in providing the financial support needed to maintain communities until they become self-sufficient are needed. An immediate ending of the subsidies is not possible presently, however. References Basset, M.C. (2008) “Daycare in Danger” at www.yahoo!contribuers.com accessed June 3, 2011 Serrano, R. (1995) “Budget Cuts Pose Dilemma among Native Americans: Aid” The New York Times May 08, 1995 at www.newyorktimesonlines.com/archives accessed June 3, 2011. Read More