Sweet 16?
After putting out his budget proposal for next year, the governor surprised us in late December with a planned new executive order. On December 20 he announced he'll create a shiny new Department of Agriculture. It's to take effect with the new budget year, but there was no mention of the price.
There's no question Alaska agriculture could use a boost. We can grow more of our own food in the Great Land, and we probably should. We can certainly stand to diversify our export economy, too. At the same time, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Not even if you grow it yourself.
Creating a new department with its own commissioner's office, budget team, etc. adds at least $1.9 million to the state's yearly spending. I base that on the cheapest commissioner's offices and administrative services shops I can find in the budget for the other 15 principal departments of the executive branch. Of course, that's just the ongoing price—it doesn't account for the multi-million dollar upfront costs of disentangling departments. That doesn't show up on the books. It just gets wrung out of other work people used to do. (The work of splitting the former Department of Health & Social Services into two is still years from completion, and consumes quite a few state workers' full-time duties, to say nothing of IT contractors, etc...)
Consider the fact Alaska spends about $7.2 million on agriculture each year right now. A department split boosts that by more than 26%.
It makes me wonder: is millions of dollars' worth of new letterhead and executives the way to go? Might we get farther spending the same amount on workers who actually sell farm land or issue aquaculture leases? Marketers who help connect Alaska products to buyers? Techs and vets to do fast, cheap inspections of plant and animal products so farmers, ranchers, and growers can get their products to market quickly and at good prices?
There is a decent argument for splitting the Department of Natural Resources in two. Since before I was born, oil, gas, and mining have dominated every commissioner's time and work. Agriculture, parks, forestry, land management, fire prevention, and water issues have taken a very distant backseat for a long, long time. Maybe dividing DNR into a department focused on renewable resources, separate from one dedicated to resource extraction, would really bring benefits to all Alaskans. But even that's a big question mark. It's your money, what do you think?
|