As the U.S. Senate deliberated over the weekend on a budget reconciliation bill, significant changes affecting Alaska struggled to gain traction.
Efforts to include provisions aimed at boosting Alaskan support faltered after a crucial procedural vote, although these measures could potentially be revived as the Senate continues an intense voting session through Monday.
Republican leaders modified the bill to introduce several benefits for Alaska, hoping to secure approval from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who expressed concerns about cuts to Medicaid and food assistance impacting the state.
In Alaska, approximately one in three residents relies on Medicaid, and one in ten utilizes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The primary objective of the budget reconciliation bill is to extend tax cuts originally enacted during President Donald Trump’s first term.
While the tax cuts predominantly favor the wealthy, their expense is alarming; even after cutting more than $1 trillion in healthcare expenditure, the bill is forecasted to increase the national deficit by $3.3 trillion in the next decade, according to a nonpartisan estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.
To garner support from Alaska’s political representatives, the bill was altered to include an increase in federal funding for Alaska’s Medicaid program, which was projected to cost the federal government $6 billion over the coming decade.
However, following a procedural vote where both Murkowski and U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan showed support, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the amendment to increase Medicaid funding violated Senate rules.
These rules prohibit the use of reconciliation bills to pass provisions unrelated to budgetary matters.
Before the vote, Murkowski and Sullivan remained tight-lipped about their intended Alaska-specific changes, avoiding interviews with Alaskan reporters as they navigated pressure from national media.
Upon the parliamentarian’s disallowance of the Alaska-specific Medicaid funding provision, Sullivan took to social media to criticize Democrats, asserting that they were responsible for Alaska missing out on additional federal Medicaid funds.
He noted that the parliamentarian only evaluates provisions that the opposing party disputes, suggesting that Hawaii—which has an all-Democratic delegation—would have also benefited from the Medicaid funding increase.
While congressional Democrats opposed the reconciliation bill on the grounds that it would reduce health and food assistance for Americans to sustain tax cuts for the wealthy, even with the proposed increase in federal Medicaid matching for Alaska and Hawaii, eligibility changes backed by Republicans, including Sullivan, were expected to reduce the number of Medicaid enrollees nationwide.
Nonetheless, Sullivan declared, “the only party cutting Medicaid dollars for Alaska is the Democrat Party,” attempting to shift the blame to Democrats, particularly for the associated Medicaid funding challenges in Alaska.
He criticized Democratic Senate leadership, labeling them as “hypocrites” for celebrating the removal of the provision intended to increase federal funding for Alaska’s Medicaid program while simultaneously agreeing to cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid nationally—affecting the health insurance of over 11 million Americans, according to an independent analysis.
Sullivan emphasized that the Democrats were the ones openly making massive cuts in Medicaid funding for Alaska, yet affirmed that the fight wasn’t over.
In addition to the Medicaid provision, other modifications specific to Alaska included an increase in tax deductions for whaling captains and the new tax exemptions for fishermen in Western Alaska.
Despite his expressed concerns regarding Medicaid funding cuts, Sullivan voted against several Democrat-supported amendments designed to safeguard Medicaid funding.
In contrast, Murkowski displayed a willingness to separate from her party to advocate for Medicaid interests, siding with Democrats in votes intended to protect rural hospitals from potential Medicaid cuts and in efforts to eliminate a provision blocking Medicaid from covering Planned Parenthood services.
Both amendments, however, failed as all other Republicans, including Sullivan, opposed them.
Furthermore, the Senate parliamentarian also found a provision aimed at boosting Medicare rates for hospital services in Alaska and Hawaii noncompliant with Senate regulations, which would have incurred a cost of $700 million over ten years.
The bill mandated new oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, with projected proceeds to split between the state and federal government, estimated to yield $700 million over the next decade.
Should the Senate successfully pass this bill, it would then require approval from the U.S. House, represented by Rep. Nick Begich, who has shown support for a version of the legislation that may remove Medicaid coverage for thousands of Alaskans.
image source from：adn
