Begich, Tshibaka build on political hypocrisy with shifting infrastructure claims
Sens. Lisa Murkowsi and Dan Sullivan and Rep. Don Young crossed party lines and voted for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that Congress approved last summer.
As of early this spring, more than $1.2 billion in Alaska projects had already been announced, Sen. Lisa Murkowski said. The final total will be much higher.
“Over the next decade, we will be able to build and modernize our core basic infrastructure—more and better roads, safer bridges, our marine highway system, and expanded ports and airports. We’ll invest in clean drinking water systems, reliable broadband, new energy innovation and resilience projects, and so much more—without raising taxes or worsening inflation,” Murkowski said.
While Sullivan complained about some elements of the bill, he supported the package, saying it “addresses Alaska’s historic deficit in infrastructure in a way that I believe will be important for our state.”
The bill has money for roads, bridges, utilities, harbors, ports, airports, the state ferry system, as well as money for broadband expansion and a variety of other projects.
Young said the bill would authorize $3.5 billion in roads for Alaska over five years and there are needs across the state.
“I truly believe that this bipartisan infrastructure legislation may be our last best chance to make the federal investments necessary to modernize and strengthen America’s infrastructure needs for the next century and beyond,” Young said.
Young was one of only 13 Republicans in the House to support the biggest federal infrastructure measure in U.S. history, signed by President Biden Nov. 15.
Two Alaska critics of the infrastructure bill, Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka and House candidate Nick Begich III, both attacked the measure and its passage, first claiming that the bill did not have enough money in it for Alaska.
“The new infrastructure deal just gives Alaska crumbs,” said Tshibaka, who had earlier whined that Alaska “always seems to get the short end of the stick.”
“It’s really more like the anti-Alaska bill,” she claimed.
Begich III took a similar stance, claiming Alaska didn’t get enough money from the bill.
“Alaska got less than 1% of the bill,” Begich III told the Juneau Empire. “Alaska got shortchanged in the bill.”
“On a per-acre basis we got the least of anyone,” Begich III said.
In the same interview, Begich attacked Young as a big spender, saying “Don Young has rarely seen a spending program that he doesn’t like. There’s just been no fiscal discipline.”
On Feb. 4, Young testified to the Alaska Legislature that Alaska will get more than $6,000 per resident for transportation support, more than any other state. “I’m proud of that fact,” Young said.
He said he wanted money to go to the Port of Alaska, despite opposition by some in Mat-Su, saying the port is crucial for the Alaska economy.
He said it was “nonsense” that Republicans would get more federal money for Alaska if they controlled Congress and the White House, saying the state can’t afford to wait for a new political order.
“I don’t want to see any bickering,” said Young.
Murkowski said she was not about to make any apologies for legacy investments in Alaska and urged legislators to be aggressive in competing for infrastructure funds.
Meanwhile, Begich and Tshibaka can’t keep their stories straight. Is it too much money or not enough?
Begich III says that everywhere he goes he tells people “that bill cost $10,000 per U.S. household” and he asks people to raise their hands if they are willing to write a check for $10,000 for what they get out of the law.
“I haven’t seen a hand yet statewide, not one. But this is what’s so strange to me as someone who doesn’t come from government. I’ve never held a government job and I’ver never been in political office,” he told supporters in Kenai last week.
Begich says “we’re told by the people that represent us, ‘Hey not only was this good, but you should thank me for it.’ That’s wrong. And it’s emblematic of everything that is wrong with the government right now.”
I don’t know everything that is wrong with government, but the carnival barker campaign act from Begich the Third about why no one is willing to write a $10,000 check is part of it. Instead of boasting about his lack of experience, he should educate himself about what this law means to Alaska and why the GOP delegation supported it.
Tshibaka is even more shameless. She no longer says the law contains “crumbs” for Alaska and has concocted a fairy tale that Murkowski only managed to get wasteful spending for Alaska because she is facing a challenge from Tshibaka.
On Twitter the other day she posted a video of herself posing near the Port of Alaska in Anchorage.
“I will support critical infrastructure development, such as the Don Young Port of Alaska, which is behind me,” she said.
The name of the Port of Alaska has yet to be changed to add Don Young’s name to it.
• Politicians talk endlessly in Alaska about the size of the Permanent Fund dividend.
Some of them do so because they know it will be the subject of endless news coverage. This emphasis is misplaced and the fault lies with the politicians and the news organizations who think they are doing their job by reporting what politicians say.
By a one-vote margin Monday, the Senate voted for a dividend check of nearly $5,600 this fall. The final number will be far lower than that and it should be. But look for claims that Alaskans are profiteering off the war in Ukraine. The claims will be correct.
One of the symptoms of our situation is that the early news coverage of the Senate action mentioned $5,600 per person, but not the total cost to the state.
The biggest single beneficiary of the plan to give everyone $5,600—remember that will not be the final number—would be the federal government.
Median households of 2.78 people on the low end would send $1,500 to Uncle Sam, while the median households in the median household income range of $77,000 would send $3,350 to the federal treasury, according to some rough number crunching by UAA economist Kevin Berry.
One estimate of the total cost to the state is $3.6 billion. This is reckless and irresponsible. No prudent person would support this but seven right-wing Republicans and three Democrats voted for it.
The 10 members of the reckless coalition are: Mia Costello, Shelley Hughes, Lora Reinbold, David Wilson, Mike Shower, Roger Holland, Robert Myers, Scott Kawasaki, Bill Wielechowski and Donny Olson.
The 9 opposing them are: Peter Micciche, Click Bishop, Tom Begich, Bert Stedman, Gary Stevens, Elvi Gray-Jackson, Lyman Hoffman, Jesse Kiehl and Josh Revak. Natasha von Imhof, who was absent, would have been with the responsible group.
Saving an extra $2 billion or $3 billion would provide improved services and opportunities for Alaskans of all income levels for generations to come. But those issues don’t get the political debate they deserve.
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.