In allowing a universal school meals bill to become law without his signature, Gov. Phil Scott adopted an interesting philosophical position. Take it away, VTDigger:

He noted that the program will fund free meals for even wealthy students. 

“That’s not progressive education funding policy, it’s regressive policy that hurts the very families we are trying to help,” he said. 

Oh yes, heaven forbid that an undeserving child should receive a free lunch. That would be an abuse of the public purse and — follow closely here, things get a little thick — a punishment on the kids who really need a handout.

As the kids used to say, “lolwut?”

This is another case where the governor can’t say the quiet part out loud — that he doesn’t want to provide free school meals despite their proven benefits — but he still has to register his disapproval, so he comes up with transparently phony arguments like “free lunches hurt poor kids” and “a veto fight would distract me from my neverending fight for better schools.” As if we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

I wouldn’t mind if he were in the least bit consistent in this position. But he’s not. In fact, this is the only issue where he argues that a non-means-tested government benefit is a bad thing.

How about the infamous remote worker grant program? You know, the one that isn’t means tested and, in fact, requires recipients to be affluent enough to be able to front the costs of an in-state move and wait for reimbursement later?

Or any number of business assistance programs (a) whose benefits are unproven and (b) which are largely attainable by large corporations with the means to navigate the process? You know, the Keurig Green Mountains of the world, for whom the state aid is basically a rounding error that won’t affect their siting or employment decisions?

Nope, that’s not a problem. But giving a free meal to a kid who could afford it? That’s a moral failure and a waste of money.

Never mind that universal meals eliminate the stigma associated with accepting a free feed when your fellow students don’t.

The free and reduced-price lunch program creates a social class system that is reinforced daily by the school lunch line. Some students get lunch for free, some get it for a reduced price, and some pay the whole cost.

Which results in many eligible students refusing free meals just to avoid being labeled and bullied.

There’s abundant evidence in favor of universal school meals. Not just as a nice thing to do, but as an investment in better education which leads to one of the governor’s most ardently sought-after goals: a well-equipped workforce.

That’s right, if you can’t think of children as the vessels of our future, then think of them as cogs in the corporate machine. Either way, they’re better off with universal school meals. Even if it means that Richie Rich might get to enjoy a free mac-and-cheese made with government surplus cheddar.

Maybe one other factor played into Scott’s decision not to wield his veto pen (obligatory “veto pen” reference): His next veto will be a historic one. It’ll be his 42nd, and that will push his total to twice as many as the previous record-holder, Howard Dean. He’ll hit 42 sooner or later, likely by the end of this month, but it might be a little too embarrassing for a self-proclaimed moderate to set a potentially unbreakable record by taking a stand against feeding schoolchildren.