The video above is wide ranging. It’s a bit long, but I think it is useful in understanding concerns.
One thing that surprised me was that the Commandant pledged to pursue construction of a second Great Lakes icebreaker. I would have thought since the Arctic Security Cutters will be able to access the Great Lakes that they would provide seasonal icebreaking in the Great Lakes.
It surprises me that we don’t yet seem to know what the additional 15,000 Coast Guard personnel that are expected to be added to the Coast Guard under Force Design 2028 will be doing, so how did we come up with this figure? There is apparently a study underway.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
The Senate has financed the 2nd GLAKES Icebreaker in the past and if the House had agreed out of Conference then it would be delivering to the USCG TODAY! Having that Icebreaker is a Regional Economic Decision based upon data.
A decision to provide an Arctic Security Cutter from time to time is a political decision that puts off the decision/expenditure. The USCGC Mackinaw EXIST TODAY, is a mature technology, and could have already been built if funded. The Arctic Security Cutter is NONE OF THOSE THINGS, and will not be for some time (years). If we have a tough winter in the GLAKES then the correct decision will be obvious. True conservatives think alike.
Just my ȼ.
The first Arctic Security Cutters are further along than the second Great Lakes icebreaker and could serve as a Great Lakes Icebreaker.
They are also going to be more capable than Mackinaw.
We routinely send icebreaking tugs from New England to break ice in the Great Lakes.
You made my argument. Like I said the Mackinaw II should have already been there, and the proof is that augment is required regularly.