America for Sale: How Lisa Murkowski's Alaska Carve Out Exposes the Rotten Core of U.S. Politics
When self interest overrides national duty, democracy becomes a transaction.
‘‘Murkowski’s maneuver exemplifies a deeper rot in American governance, a mode of politics that prioritizes short-term gain for a select few over the well-being of the whole.’’
Late at night, while most Americans were asleep, a new version of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill was quietly released. This was not simply about obscure appropriations or harmless legislative tweaks. It was a Trojan horse, sneaking in policies that hurt the nation’s most vulnerable, chief among them, new work requirements for recipients of SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. But tucked into this otherwise brutal piece of legislation was a curious exception: individuals in "a noncontiguous state" would be exempt. In other words, Alaska would be spared.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of the few remaining swing votes, had voiced concerns over the devastating cost of this legislation to her state. Her concern was not ideological. It was financial. According to estimates, Alaska would be hit with billions of dollars in additional nutrition assistance costs. So, she did what too many American politicians have learned to do: she cut a deal. Alaska gets an exemption, and in return, Murkowski signs off on a bill that plunges the rest of the country deeper into inequality.
This is not a compromise. This is betrayal.
The Politics of the Carve-Out
Murkowski’s maneuver exemplifies a deeper rot in American governance, a mode of politics that prioritizes short-term gain for a select few over the well-being of the whole. It is the same brand of self-interest that has metastasized under Trumpism, where everything is transactional and principles are props. This carve-out isn't just a policy detail. It is a moral failure.
Murkowski knows the policy is harmful. That is precisely why she fought to exempt her constituents from it. But rather than block the bill entirely, or demand broader changes that would help all Americans, she sold her vote in exchange for Alaska's protection.
The message is clear: This policy is cruel, but it’s acceptable so long as it doesn’t affect my people. It's a stunning admission of the bill's cruelty, and a damning indictment of a senator willing to ignore that cruelty once her backyard is safe.
This Is Trumpism, Fully Emboldened
This kind of deal making is not a relic of a past era. It is the politics of the present, firmly rooted in the Trump presidency. We are witnessing, in real time, the normalization of governance through personal favors, loyalty deals, and transactional backroom agreements. Murkowski’s carve-out is not a break from this system. It is a textbook example of how it works.
Under Trump, cruelty is not an accident. It is often a feature. Helping others is portrayed as weakness, and success is measured not by collective progress but by how much you can hoard for your own side. Murkowski may still wear the mask of moderation, but this move proves she is fluent in the language of self-interest that defines this era.
When one senator can protect her state while enabling suffering for the rest of the country, we can no longer pretend that this government is guided by fairness or unity. It is guided by leverage and survival, one carve-out at a time.
The Myth of National Unity
We are told the United States is a union. But this bill shows just how fragmented that union has become. Senators no longer act as national legislators. They act as state brokers. They deliver for their zip code and leave the rest to fend for themselves.
What kind of democracy allows a senator to protect her own state from policies she knows are harmful, only to vote those same policies into law for everyone else? This isn’t a compromise. This isn’t a strategy. This is cowardice disguised as pragmatism.
And yet, it is perfectly legal. That’s what makes it so dangerous. The system has evolved to reward political narcissism and punish moral courage. The voters are left with the illusion of representation while politicians trade votes for exemptions in smoke-filled back rooms.
SNAP as a Moral Test
SNAP is not some abstract welfare program. It feeds children. It prevents malnutrition. It gives struggling families a chance at dignity. Adding work requirements to SNAP is not about encouraging employment. It is about punishing the poor. It is a cruel tactic disguised as reform, grounded in the baseless assumption that those in poverty are lazy.
Murkowski knows this. That’s why she fought for the exemption. And by doing so, she validated the premise that the new requirements are damaging. Instead of fighting for fairness, she simply secured immunity for her own state.
The hypocrisy could not be more glaring. If this provision is wrong for Alaska, it is wrong for every state. But Murkowski didn’t oppose it. She participated in it. And that makes her complicit in the harm it will do.
A Government of the Few, by the Few, for the Few
This kind of deal-making erodes faith in democracy itself. It reinforces the belief that government is a rigged game, where those with the right leverage get a pass and everyone else gets punished.
It should come as no surprise that voter trust in Congress is at historic lows. People see the backroom deals, the hypocrisy, the carve-outs, and the self-dealing, and they conclude, not without reason, that the system is broken. Worse, they start to believe that compassion and justice have no place in policymaking.
Murkowski's exemption may benefit her politically, but it comes at the cost of national solidarity. It turns governance into an auction, where empathy is withheld unless it can be traded for votes.
A Call to Reject Carve-Out Politics
America cannot survive as a patchwork of special deals and privileged exceptions. We either govern as a nation or we disintegrate into fiefdoms. The SNAP exemption for Alaska is not just a technical provision. It is a test case in whether we will tolerate a system where representation is reduced to self-interest.
It is time to reject this form of politics. Time to demand that our leaders take responsibility for the whole nation, not just their home districts. If Murkowski truly believed in fairness, she would have rejected the bill outright or demanded changes that helped everyone, not just Alaskans.
And it’s time for voters to wake up. This is how bad laws get passed, not because a majority of the people support them, but because politicians cut deals in the dead of night, believing that we are too distracted to notice.
But we do notice. And we will remember.
Further Reading
"The Sum of Us" by Heather McGhee Explores how zero sum thinking undermines collective progress
"Democracy in Chains" by Nancy MacLean: A history of how elites rig democracy in their favor
"Dying of Whiteness" by Jonathan Metzl: How racial resentment and self-interest destroy public policy for all
The majority of Alaskans voted for Trump. In Murkowski's party-first world, she probably feels they've earned it. But, imagine the screams from the right if Biden's budget proposal cut such a deal with Hawaii (and their heads would explode if it were California).
she's a cunt