By DAN FAGAN
As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
There’s little doubt Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s plan to expand Alaska state government by creating a brand new Department of Agriculture is unpopular. Especially on social media, where 99% of those commenting say they don’t like the governor’s idea. It’s become a topic of ridicule.
The governor’s advisors should have seen this debacle move a mile away. After all, they’ve been at this for six years, and they might have learned a thing or two about rolling out an initiative as big as an executive order expanding government.
The timing could not be worse. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are putting on a clinic showing how big and bloated the federal government has become. So much unnecessary and foolish spending!
Meanwhile Dunleavy’s team is putting on a clinic demonstrating how to not read the room.
It’s like bell bottoms are all the rage and you show up to a party with skinny jeans.
Alaskans are very aware that as bloated as the federal government is, it’s just as bad in the 49th State, where the number of state government employees exceeds twice the population of Wasilla alone. Per capita, Alaska has five times the state employees as some states and double the number of most states.
But it’s the governor’s team’s ever changing story on the unpopular expansion plan that really has us scratching our heads.
His office first claimed the creation of Dunleavy’s new Department of Agriculture would cost $2.7 million. But they then changed their story, claiming there would be little or no cost to create the department because existing staff would be transferred and reclassified.
So which is it?
Those versions were followed by a nine-minute video produced to promote his new department. In it, Dunleavy attempted to address the fears of those worried about how he would pay for the expansion. If the governor is addressing how he’ll pay for his new department, he must be back to the notion his plan will indeed cost something.
“…eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, some of the proceeds from what the farmers are growing begins to help to pay for that department,” said Dunleavy.
It seems obvious taking “proceeds from what farmers grow” is a tax on the very farmers he claims he wants to help. It’s certainly not a stretch to assume that.
Farmers grow crops, they sell them for proceeds, and then the state swoops in and takes – or one could say tax – those proceeds to pay the salary of bureaucrats.
When the governor’s taking proceeds from farmers comment was pointed out here in Must Read Alaska, his plan went from being in intensive care to being on life support.
But the governor’s team kept digging, issuing a statement claiming Dunleavy’s “taking proceeds from what farmers grow” comment was not a call for tax on farmers.
“The ‘Proceeds’ that I was referencing in my video had to do with agricultural land sales to help underwrite aspects of the ag department,” wrote Dunleavy in response.
But in his video he said nothing of land sales. He said “proceeds from what farmers grow.”
So which is it? Proceeds from what farmers grow or proceeds from land sales. These are two very different things.
After posting my original story about the governor’s plan to tax farmers on Facebook, the governor’s policy advisor, Andrew Jensen, posted this response on my page:
“Latest load of garbage. Funny you’re still promoting this even after your entire premise was debunked.”
I’m reminded of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” in which the lead character Tom Sawyer said, “Your saying so don’t make it so.”
Jensen claiming Dunleavy didn’t say what he clearly said is hardly a “debunking,” even if the governor’s policy advisor wishes it so.
The real question is how did Jensen not catch Dunleavy’s call for taxing farmers? Was he on a smoke break when the video was recorded? How could a policy adviser miss what was not exactly a nuanced reference to proceeds from what is grown being used to pay for the department itself.
Seasoned political handlers know when your hole gets deeper and deeper, stop digging. It appears that after six years of practical experience, the “Standing Tall” governor is still somewhat short on advisors who understand this basic fundamental principle.
That said, the governor seems very sincere and passionate about addressing food insecurity in Alaska. It’s not as though he has a selfish motive here. But his government-centric approach to solving Alaska’s dependence on outsiders for food is not sitting well with his base. You would think his advisors could have seen this one coming, but perhaps they have lost touch with the base altogether.
Dan Fagan reports and writes columns for Must Read Alaska. He’s covered Alaska politics for close to 30-years. He currently hosts a morning drive radio talk show on 1020 am 92.5 and 104.5 fm on KVNT. For news tips, email Dan at [email protected]
If you live in a place like, say, Louisiana, you probably don’t worry much about where you food comes from. But in this world of political availability, when anything can be shut off at the whim of a politician or authoritarian, a place like Alaska might be a bit more concerned about food. Indeed, even the longshoremen’s union can cut us off, and almost completely.
A political commentator’s job, which consists of 100% complaining and opining, is a pretty easy job. Running a state isn’t.
Sounds like Reggie is saying that the governor’s job is just too hard for Mike to do correctly. Many people are aware of food insecurity in Alaska, and are doing something about it without government interference and taxation. Now we wonder, does the governor want to tax everything at the local farmer’s market? I think that Mike sees this, along with the farming of toxic GMO frankenfish, as a way to earn some kickbacks after he leaves office. We’ll just have to wait and see.
“……..Sounds like Reggie is saying that the governor’s job is just too hard for Mike to do correctly…….”
Can’t you read, or do you spin like a top with every heartbeat? I was pretty clear; it’s easy to complain and cast aspersions, and not as easy to actually run a state……..especially with people across the continent stirring the pot. The fact is researched, established, and undeniable: we import a full 95% of our food, and there are numerous potential snafus that can interrupt that importation. Now, that’s fine as long as the airlines can provide you folks with transportation down to, say, Louisiana, but I think it’s still wise to encourage food security. You can eat Twinkies if you like.
Reminds one of the aerial shooting of bears. Not effective and repulsive to most people in and out of Alaska. If the governor want to cull the bear population then facilitate hunting by L48 hunters. They will happily pay for the opportunity.
“………Reminds one of the aerial shooting of bears. Not effective……..”
If it’s not effective, why the complaints? The bleeding hearts cry because aerial shooters kill bears (or anything else they target, with the possible exception of earthworms) with great effect. That’s why ADFG does it that way.
My father told me as a young lad “whatever you subsidize you get more of”, also ” the purpose of any beauracracy is to perpetuate itself”. Just think of how much money we simply throw at various issues & how those issues get worse & worse. Has the homeless issue gotten any better? Has the issues of public education in Alaska improved? The beauracracy keeps growing yet the issues remain or get worse. Why don’t we try not subsidizing the things we want less of.
You’re writing about the guy that rammed a carbon sequestration scam on us, an open end “mental” health incarceration/drugging victims law, has not released the Kelly Tahibaka report, etc . It appears many of the biden assisted policy maker crew are in juneau where their botulism filled ideas are are soup du jour every day.
I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help!
Ken, I’m not with the government, and I’m here to do you no damn good! Stuff that in your bong to smoke or snort it up–whatever gets you high….
A department of ag will be no more effective than a division of ag.
In the summer of 2004 DNR and the dept of ag had a land sale. We bid on and won an ag parcel that abutted our property. We gave them a large down payment and earnest money at the time of the sale. One of the things we had to do was get a farm conservation plan accepted. This required a lot of paperwork. The soil service in Delta Junction claimed that they were just to busy to do their job and process it. Eventually I learrned that the real need was for a Corps of Enginerrs wetlands determination. They wanted to drag their feet also but I reminded them that they had a time requirement on processing applications. I had all my paperwork done in short order. Then I waited. And I waited. I could have been out marking the required development in the summer when it was easy. As it was I did not get entry after having given them a down payment in August until February. Does it usually take five months to get entry after buying a house? So I had to mark line on snowshoes dragging a box of gear on a sled in two or more feet of snow in severe cold. The reason for the delay? My paperwork had ridden around in the briefcase of a dept of ag official for over two months.
Fast forward a year.
Having busted my tail many hours a day on the development requirement and having spent a lot of money on equipment and fuel the division informed me that some gal that had an axe to grind with the state and sued them over EVERY land sale for the last few years had very predictedly (Although not predicted by the mental giants at the division.) done it again. The state also paid this person to sue them every time as she was indigent. So the division said I had to sit around with my finger up my nose till this was settled. Then they suggested I just give the parcel back to them and loose my investment in it and eat the cost of all the equipment I had bought or rented, all the fuel I had used, and the hundereds of hours of hard work I had put in. After about a year it was determined that once again the suit was frivolous and I could continue.
Yeah, let’s make these clowns a department.
Comments are closed.