Alaska may not fare so well under Trump

What's in store for Alaska from the Trump administration? There have been enough strong hints to suggest that, notwithstanding Trump's good showing among Alaska voters, Alaska is not going to do well. Though all three of our congressional representatives gave at least nominal support to the Trump campaign, Sens. Murkowski and Sullivan will be under particular pressure to evaluate President Trump's nominees at confirmation hearings and Rep. Young too will join them facing pressure with respect to program initiatives. The irony here, for these three and many other members of Congress, is that opposition to many of President Trump's programs may well develop as vigorously as opposition to President Obama's programs. It may also be that a new, informal coalition develops in the Senate with a few or quite a few Republican senators joining overwhelming Democratic opposition to block nominations of extremists and relegate ill-conceived program proposals to the waste basket.

Among the most obvious of these contests will be the fight over the president's proposals to "voucher-ise" Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs and other medical programs and to advance voucher use in public schools. We are likely to see a wave of angry senior citizens, relatives of senior citizens, teachers and parents sweep over Trump's proposals and reject the Cabinet officers that appear to have been selected solely for enthusiasm for vouchers as a substitute for established federal programs. No doubt there are supporters of such proposals, but they surely aren't a majority. If Alaska's two senators nod dutifully endorsing these nominees, it will drop money in the bank for opponents in future elections.

[What will federal policies toward Alaska Natives look like under the Trump administration?]

Candidate Trump has made much of international trade agreements as allegedly doing away with American jobs. Maybe a majority of Americans agree with him, but not Alaskans who know something about the state's economy. We are not a manufacturing state. Very few jobs fall into that category. Alaska is an exporting state, in the billions. If we get into tariff and trade wars, retaliatory action against Alaska's exports is all but certain. Alaska's delegation has no business supporting national initiatives that can provoke trade wars and cost Alaskans thousands of jobs.

There is of course the one, perennial possibility that Trump can break the hold of the environmental movement and its allies, and arrange for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or parts of it, to be open for exploration and development of oil and gas. For this development to help the state in its current budget crisis, it would be wise to have a general income tax in place so that the 6,000 or so immigrants who would come with this development, including nonresidents already here, pay a share of the public services they will use such as roads, medical and educational services, and public safety among others that you now pay for.

[Alaskan Bob Gillam wants to be U.S. Interior secretary]

Thematically, the Trump administration is going to be a bit of a problem for the Alaska delegation. Both Sen. Murkowski and, even more, Sen. Sullivan, are noted for their loyalty to conservative Republican principles. How "Republican" principles will be redefined in the Trump administration is uncertain, but so far, every tilt is to the extreme. "Great Again" is beginning to sound "like in the 1920s." How about "Alaska First"?

Congress is still going to go along with President Trump, to a point, in his promise to eviscerate the federal bureaucracy. Once again Alaska's interest is not the Trump interest. Some Alaskans may not like to hear this but the federal bureaucracy is a major element in the state's economic base. Several thousand federal employees and their families spend most of their income in this state. Cuts in numbers and cuts in salary mean cuts in the rest of Alaska's economy.

The federal bureaucracy also holds the door open for thousands of tourists.  Tourism has a far greater potential in Alaska to give the basic economy a lift than anything on deck. We have been hearing about "diversification" for decades, but the reality is, the state must build on its actual assets. Tourism in this great state is paltry compared with it contribution to the economy of many other states.

So Alaskans will be watching our delegation in the new Congress with special interest. Are they with Alaska, or Trump's version of the national interest?

John Havelock is a former Alaska attorney general and former White House Fellow. He lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.