Gov. Mike Dunleavy has added a surprise twist in his effort to create a new state agency.
Dunleavy said in a promotional video that a tax on farming will “hopefully sooner rather than later” pay for his plan to create a new state Department of Agriculture in Alaska.
In the 9-minute state-produced video advocating for the creation of the new department, the governor acknowledged the plan is to tax farmers.
The state already has a Division of Agriculture, which falls under the Department of Natural Resources. Separating it out from under DNR would require a new commissioner and quite possibly some additional state bureaucrats.
“For those that fear this is going to cost an extraordinary amount of money, we’re basically going to move the division into its own department stand it up and then put the focus on what is needed to make sure the department works well for farmers,” said Dunleavy. “And then be able to grow that sector where eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, some of the proceeds from what the farmers are growing begins to help to pay for that department.”
Gov. Dunleavy issued a response to clarify his statement: “The ‘Proceeds’ that I was referencing in my video had to do with agricultural land sales to help underwrite aspects of the ag department. not new taxes. If anyone understands me, they will know that taxes, especially on a small and growing business, is not something I was alluding to. This is to clarify that so that there is no future misunderstanding.”
However, originally he said “proceeds from what the famers are growing.”
Here’s the video:
Taking some of the “proceeds from what the farmers are growing” sounds like a tax on their income and would require additional bureaucrats to collect and account for the taxes.
Former President Ronald Reagan once warned when government gets involved in “helping” the private sector, it often taxes the very industry it purports to help.
“If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, and if stops moving subsidize it,” said Reagan of government’s approach to helping industry.
Dunleavy has been short on specifics on how newly created government bureaucrats will help grow Alaska agriculture. He has provided no particular plan or called for new regulations or farm subsides. But his inference that he’ll tax farmers if his plan works was new information in this department rollout.
Department of Natural Resources Commissioner John Boyle testified to the Senate Finance Committee that there would be no cost to create the department of Agriculture because existing staff would be transferred and reclassified. The start-up cost would be minimal, he said.
That contradicts the earlier statement from the Governor’s Office that it would cost $2.7 million.
Critics of the plan say Alaska has a poor record of using government to prop up industry, especially agriculture.
History is littered with stories of politicians promising to grow the private sector by hiring more bureaucrats only to see government over regulate, pick winners and losers among competitors, and raise taxes on the very industry it was supposed to help.
“I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” said Reagan.
Dunleavy appears to have little support from legislators for his Department of Agriculture expansion plan. Only Republican State Sen. Shelley Hughes, whose district has a heavy farm presence, has openly supported the governor on this issue.
This may be why Dunleavy is selling his plan so hard. Last week, his office posted a short video on Facebook asking Alaskans to help him lobby the Legislature to approve his executive order. This week, he produced the long video of himself explaining his hopes for food security through creation of a department dedicated to farming.
The state faces a $536 million deficit for spending, and legislators appear to favor massive increases to the state Department of Education, which may mean new taxes on Alaskans in the form of a drastically reduced Permanent Fund dividend.
Alaska leads the nation in the number of state government employees per capita by a large margin. The state has five times as many as some states and double the number of state employees of most states. And the governor has already created one additional department in his six years in office, when he split the Department of Health and Social Services into two separate agencies.
Dunleavy says it’s about prioritizing state’s food security.
The Legislature may vote to reject the executive order; that vote is done in a joint session of the House and Senate, which may occur on March 18.
Unless rejected by a majority of lawmakers by March 22, 60 days after the order was signed by the governor, the Department of Agriculture would become official on July 1.
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].
Always knew Mike was a squishy that got elected to do Democrats’ deeds. This loser is going get us a Democrat elected after he leaves.
Well, this is an easy “no” vote.
This is a baffling move. More government and more taxes does not help or encourage farming and ranching in a state where both are not thriving, but barely surviving. Whomever is advising the governor on this one is feeding him bad advice.
🦃
🐖
Thank you for the information Mr. Fagan.
Got to keep government down in the whole, as its nature is greedy, rapacious and a dead hand. It is like a mafia.
Agreed
I see another seafood plant boondoggle, writ even larger.
“Please, have another helping of Delta barley!”
The State of Alaska has a Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development. Can any of you state 1 thing that department has brought to Alaska in terms of business? I can’t. The government is proposing another department that will cost and do nothing. Sorry Governor, it’s a NO!
Yup.
Another bureaucracy staffed by the parasitical class that would struggle to make it in the private sector.
We need a DOGE in Juneau & Dunleavy is not the one to do it.
We need a businessman running tbr government – not an educator/teacher or these career politicos.
I was generally in favor of getting the Department of Ag going and in better position to advocate for the sale of good quality ground owned by DNR for agriculture but adding taxes to an industry that you have said you would like to see expand is mind-boggling.
Reminds me of that fraud Yundt!
This man was/is/always will be an empty suit broken by Giessel.
As I’ve said many times before, the best Democrats in Alaska have Rs after their names.
Just because you don’t like Dunleavy–and why is that? He’s all in on MAGA, even though apparently Dan Fagan is all in on Reagan, which is in complete contradiction… There’s not a single Democrat in this state that supports Dunleavy, so now the GOP doesn’t like him and everyone is acting like he’s Lisa Murkowski. “Conservatives” can’t decide what they believe in anymore, only that they hate government, so electing them is about as useful as selecting a Marxist to be a CEO.
Agriculture is here and food is kind of important. In the last few decades we see some successful value-added businesses like Delta Meat and Sausage, Alaska Flour and Alaska Range Dairy gain a foothold in the market. Even in this harsh climate we can do many competitive things successfully-sugar beets, potatoes, carrots, barley, beef. If we only develop the markets or make the decision to pay the little extra to not be totally dependent on Big Ag. Alaska grass fed beef is superior but won’t financially compete with an Amarillo feedlot (from which the smell extends about 10 miles down wind). Family farmers are being pushed out of America, just like they were largely squeezed out of the Matanuska Valley, and for now we have the open land for them to prosper. As the sign above the airport entrance in Dutch Harbor announces: ‘Opportunity Abounds’, so, too, is this potential available if we can only nurture it.
Words can be so inspirational, especially when they are used in trying to convince the people into footing the bloated government bills.
It’s Opportunity Abounds NOT Socialism Abounds.
“Nurture It” with millions of the peoples dollars.
You don’t need another department to sell AG land or to give away the peoples money to a select few.
Farmland in America is under assault by big money and big ag. The largest owner in America is Bill Gates. Left alone there will be only industrial agriculture, which will ultimately coalesce just like big pharma. Are you willing to let your food go into the same economics as your healthcare? There is a place for government intervention (Sherman Anti-trust Act), and there is a place for beneficial intervention (Pacific Railway Act of 1862). Even now, one of the biggest farmers in Alaska is the federal government through their policies locking land out of production for very lucrative subsidies. Perhaps at the state level we could foster production and keep big industry, and big fed, at bay.
As far as the Lower 48 problems, You have a lot of factors contributing to their problems from high property taxes, poor business sense, population, globalism, world trade, to simple greed by government and land owners for the selling out of the lands.
You start trying to feed the world instead of just your country or local area from one part of a state or country you’re doomed to have big AG take over. Just like the Salmon problems, the gulf of Alaska fisherman are trying to feed the world, that’s not sustainable, or natural..
Interesting that this Executive Order 136 calls for allowing existing farmers to have 1st dibs on neighbouring state lands to their existing farms, it also calls for big marketing and exporting. This is the definition of Big Ag, they are no longer servicing their local and state areas.
I grew up with my family running a 300 cow calf and hay operation ranch.
We didn’t make the people/government pay for our land or for running our operation. We took operation loans if we needed them, and paid them back after selling the calves.
There’s loads of Ag lands laying around up here already privately owned. Some of it purposely not even being utilized by the owners. If they want to sell some more AG land to the people, great, but they don’t need another costly bureaucracy department to do that.
I don’t depend on the government to feed me, nor do I depend on the government with the peoples money to give me some land, clear and drain it for me, and then give me free money to operate it, so in return I can then charge the same very people a high dollar price tag on my goods.
I think it would serve the people better if the people would learn how to be a little more self reliant in themselves and grow their own gardens and such.
Zip, thanks for your comment.
This idea of allowing people to grow their own food is spot on! One recalls when another socialized, centrally controlled economy, ( which included agriculture), the old Soviet Union, gave garden plots to individuals. These ” Dacha’s” as I believe they were called kept the Russian people fed. Oddly enough it may have also given rise to an underground free market economy as well.
Point is, the best way to alleviate food insecurity is to put farm land in the hands of the populace.
Farmers were crushed with the loss of the fertilizer plant in Kenai, along with the global cuts. How is a dept. Of Ag going to help this problem?I have always supported the Gov and hoped he would toughen up in his last term. Who has his ear?
Incentivize a urea plant for now empty back hauls from the North Slope. Or, if the gas pipeline ever comes, in Fairbanks. With cheap urea we could undercut Idaho potatoes and North Dakota sugar beets.
Don’t look now, you’re supporting the start of big AG.
While we have a president in Washington attempting to greatly reduce the huge bureaucracy in government and here in Alaska, we have these idiots in Juneau that are attempting to drive us into the poor house. What a bunch of crap. Free enterprise farmers are making a living and supplying us with food and along comes this completely idiotic idea to tax them so the government can stick it’s nose into their business. Does anyone not remember the point MacKenzie Agricultural nightmare that cost us over $120 million for NOTHING? And the state paid the failed project farmers another $8 million to bisect the farm land with a railroad the state NEVER completed. Government is NOT the answer, government is the problem!
Don’t worry about the maybe to be and existing farmers and ranchers because those taxes will be forwarded onto the consumer through whatever goods the farmers and ranchers are selling. Just like how all of us will be paying for all those forgivable/grant loans, and extra government workers.
If you want less of something, you tax it.
.
With that in mind, one can only assume that Dunleavy wants less in-state agriculture….
This is simply state gov’t. grubbing for dollars. Food security is important. Government is not needed in reaching that goal. Any tax on farm products will disincentivize food production, which will obviously not help. A dept. of Agriculture is not needed. Surprised to see Dunleavy taking such a cheap shot.
The state is on the losing end of everything with that man at the wheel. He is an accident, going to happen every minute of the day. This is just another losing idea that attracts airheads and idiots.
BRONSON FOR GOVERNOR
Does the gov understand that he just contradicted himself? He said proceeds from what the farmers are growing, and then he says proceeds from land sales is what he meant. I’m confused.
He’s lying.
He blows with the wind – he’s unprincipled.
Wally Hickel was gifted with wisdom. He rightly said Alaska will always be a resource state rather than an agricultural state. His was a common sense observation. Agriculture will never be feasible at northern latitudes. Fighting reality at cost is a fool’s errand that only the government would engage in.
Wayne, I too have incredible respect for Old Wally. That said, one cannot take every observation to the bank.
Turns out Agriculture was always a part of the Alaskan economy. One is reminded of a story told to me by John Butrovich.
Johnny was employed on a Truck Farm in Fairbanks when President Harding came to the farm for a a visit. The then young man and future State Senator immediately plucked a fat carrot from its bed, cleaned it and handed to the President. Harding remarked on the carrots size and sweet flavor.
Point is folks know how to feed themselves, if one only has access to land upon which to till.
BTW, Tlingit people grew their ” Tlinget Potatoes ” in gardens even in rain soaked Southeast, pre Colombian contact too. Go figure.
We don’t need a dept. of agriculture; we need land for agriculture.
There is, at this moment, 20 miles of road from a previous State of Alaska debacle. It stretches from Houston to Pt. Mac. If the land on either side of the road were divided into 1,000-acre parcels, 32 of them would be created.
I read once that the average size of a cattle ranch in British Columbia is 1,000 acres which is why I calculated that acreage.
The road is built. It exists. Homestead off the parcels with the caveat the land is to be dedicated to agriculture in any form, each parcel will have a home on it occupied by the homesteader and their business profitable within 10 years or the entire property is forfeit and auctioned off to someone else who wants to make a go of it.
As things look now, a cynical bast*rd like myself is going to assume this new dept. of agriculture is going to be a conduit for subsidies and other shenanigans to benefit existing farmers and ranchers while suppressing any and all potential competition.
Or am I wrong?
A department of Agriculture is the last thing we need to build this sector. What the state needs to do is get out of the way and allow our small farms sell their products to residents including raw milk and meat.
Alaska farmed products are not going to do well in other states so marketing is not needed. Our universities already do well providing current science and techniques to the farmers, so a Department of Agriculture is not needed. Perhaps the state can give these university departments a boost with some grants but that does not take a Department of Agriculture.
If the DNR is not focusing on agriculture enough, use an executive order to change that priority. With declining oil and coal sales the staff should be able to realign their workload.
But our state is already revenue deficient to run the bureaucracy we already have and instead of expanding we should be reducing the bureaucracy.
We need to grow food, NOT the Administrative State.
I thought we were reducing the size and authority of nanny-state government? Enough. No new bureaucracy please.
Why do you not post my comments?
Almost every attempt I make to post now on MRAK only ends up giving me the message “403: Forbidden”. It has been going on for weeks, and is very frustrating, as every comment so submitted was just wasted time.
Jeff: Maybe it’s AI screening your material and finding illogical and disconnected from reality.
That’s got to be the dumbest proposal I’ve ever heard . We’ve got near $80 per barrel oil and tax the poor farmer ? Does not even make sense . Who are these idiots we keep electing over and over . Dunleavy that’s dumb !