In my previous post, I slammed Deputy Human Services Secretary Todd Daloz for insisting on a cap of $80 — to take effect the day after tomorrow — on motel vouchers under the GA housing program. Well, now I get to slam Democratic lawmakers because they, too, see no problem with this administrative and human rights absurdity. Yesterday, the House-Senate conference committee approved H.839, the Budget Adjustment Act, with more generous eligibility standards for the voucher program but also with that damned March 1 deadline.

And today the full Senate rammed it through on a voice vote. On to the House tomorrow, I suppose, and then to Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. He’d better sign it lickety-split so the ink will be dry before the cap takes effect.

ON FRIDAY.

Most, but not all, of the participating motels have agreed to accept $80 per household per night. On Tuesday, Daloz said that about 400 rooms might drop out of the program. And there’s already a shortage of rooms. So if this thing goes through — and the skids appear thoroughly greased — then hundreds of Vermonters face complete unsheltering THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and hundreds more are likely to be shunted around the state with precious little notice.

Good God in Heaven, what are we doing?

You can tell when someone is saying something uncomfortable in a legislative hearing, because the other people in the room studiously avoid looking in the speaker’s direction. In the above screengrab, House Human Services Committee chair Rep. Theresa Wood is doing her best to defend the March 1 cap. How did she do, you may ask?

“Do we accept there will be some motels that… no longer want to participate?” she said. “Yes, we believe that there will be some. We don’t know how exactly how many.” She posited that “the vast majority” would agree to lower reimbursements.

Sen. Andrew Perchlik, who doesn’t seem to like this one little bit but is going along with the consensus, asked if some people would have to be moved from one motel to another. Wood’s response:

Yes. Which is disruptive, we recognize, and not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. But I feel like we need to be very clear about what our expectations are with regard to these hotels.

“Not ideal.”

Not fucking ideal.

That’s a nice bit of understatement. What Wood is saying is that we have to be tough with motel operators, and the voucher clients are just collateral damage.

But wait, there’s more!

…this is dealing with the capacity we have, and trying to prioritize those individuals — all people who are homeless are in need, don’t get me wrong — but when we’re dealing with, you know, a pretty much a set capacity of rooms that are available, there has to be some way to address families, children, older Vermonters, people with disabilities.

Mm-hmm. It’s “dealing with the capacity we have” by reducing the capacity. “All people who are homeless are in need,” but shoulder shrug, we can’t help ’em all. Partly because we’re imposing a cap with no notice and daring motel operators to drop out of the program.

All to save a few shekels. “Don’t get me wrong,” indeed.

With all due respect, Rep. Wood, I think I’ve got you right.

Friday afternoon ought to be quite the occasion, with who knows how many clients either being forced to move to other lodgings on the spot or even being exited from the program with no notice because there aren’t enough rooms.

One more point, slightly tangential. You often hear from legislative leaders that there isn’t enough time to do X, Y, or Z. There’s no time to run a bill through. There’s no time to implement a new policy. “Sorry, it’d be nice, but [taps wrist] gotta go!”

Well, after this little escapade, I NEVER EVER WANT TO HEAR, EVER AGAIN, THAT THERE’S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO SOMETHING. If they can take a significant policy change on a life-and-death safety net program and run it through the Legislature and implement it in two days’ time, then they can do abso-fucking-lutely anything. From now on, “There’s no time” is nothing more than an excuse to avoid taking uncomfortable action.

By which I mean “uncomfortable” for lawmakers and administrators. If we’re talking about program recipients, Our Political Betters are more than happy to dish out the discomfort.