Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan need to let Alaskans know exactly which parts of the $1.9 trillion COVID19 bailout bill they found so objectionable that they voted against the measure along with every other Republican.

They are eager to denounce the bill, but appear to be afraid of saying why, perhaps because they don’t want to mention specifics that are popular among Alaskans.

The $1,400 checks to those making up to $75,000?

The extension of $300 per week unemployment benefits until September?

The expansion of the child care credit program to give $3,000 for each child ages 6-17 and $3,600 for those under 6?

The money that will go directly to the state, local and tribal governments in Alaska? What about money for schools, infrastructure, homeless shelters and the rest?

Murkowski said she helped get an amendment to increase the per-state minimum benefit to $1.25 billion, adding more than $400 million for Alaska in the bill she and Sullivan opposed.

She provided a long list of what she liked about the bill. If you read only part of her press release, you might conclude that she is taking a victory lap about the bill’s passage:

“The bill includes support specifically for tribes to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure and increases the Rural Provider Relief fund. I helped secure an increase to the minimum amount of state and local funding for all states—Alaska was originally slated for $800 million and that is now increased to $1.25 billion. The Senate also passed my bipartisan amendment to give homeless youth and children the resources they need to enroll and succeed in school amid the ongoing pandemic. The final package facilitates getting kids back in school safely and keeping businesses afloat, and bolsters vaccine distribution. Individual payments along with a further extension of Unemployment Insurance will be important to many Alaskans, particularly in our hard hit tourism sector.”

But Murkowski said there are formulas that don’t give enough money to states like Alaska or to Alaska Natives and that the bill spends too much on the wrong things.

What are the wrong things?

She said in press release that “significant federal dollars that will go to those who have economically benefited during the pandemic,” but she was unwilling to give a single example.

Had every dollar of the $1.9 trillion been aimed at the military, Murkowski and Sullivan would have easily found reasons to support it.

In short, Murkowski and Sullivan said they opposed the bill because of unmentionables that they can’t reveal.

Sullivan, who wasn’t present for the final vote because he had returned to Alaska for the funeral of Bud Fate, his father-in-law, said he liked “funding for struggling individuals and communities, the university system, and additional relief for Alaska’s tourism industry.”

But Sullivan said he opposed the bill because it “funds a wish-list of partisan policies unrelated to the pandemic or economic recovery.”

He was unwilling to identify a single item on the wish list of partisan policies that he opposes.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that largely ignores the input and unique needs of Alaskans,” Sullivan said in his press release, before launching into his routine that Joe Biden has declared war on Alaska.

The unmentionable objectionables need to be identified by Murkowski and Sullivan, lest it be revealed that this was not at all about specifics, but the blanket wall of opposition built by Republicans.

For Alaska, one of the best things about the bill approved by the Senate is that it will weaken the claims by Gov. Mike Dunleavy that a $3 billion raid on the Permanent Fund is necessary to pump more money into the Alaska economy.

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.