The contest for “Stupidest Veto in the History of Phil Scott Vetoes” is a richly competitive one, with numerous contenders for the honors among the [checks notes] 52 vetoes he has unleashed upon Vermont’s normally placid and communitarian political life*. But the next one he threatens to cast may prove to be the winner.

*Obligatory reminder: Scott has racked up 52 vetoes, more than twice as many as any other governor. He long ago surpassed Howard Dean’s second-place total of 21, and Dean served three and a half years longer than Scott. “Governor Nice Guy” indeed.

Scott is now promising to veto H.141, the Budget Adjustment Act, because the Democratic Legislature dared to spend a little more money on sheltering the homeless than he wanted to.

Honestly, why he has such a bug up his butt about the motel voucher program, I don’t know. He’s bound and determined to kill it, willing to go to almost any length to do so. Any length short of, you know, proposing an alternative, which he has never managed to do. Well, there’s permitting reform, which would likely increase the overall housing supply years from now.

It’s almost as big a bug as the one lodged in his rectum over universal school meals. Limiting free meals to schoolkids is, after all, his one and only concrete suggestion for cutting the cost of public education. “Governor Nice Guy” indeed.

Scott is upset over a $1.8 million appropriation to extend winter eligibility rules through the end of the fiscal year, which would prevent the sudden unsheltering of some 760 Vermonters in early April including 160 children. And eligibility had previously been limited to those officially defined as vulnerable due to age, disability, domestic abuse, pregnancy, or other factors. The imaginary deadbeat class are no longer in the cohort, if they ever were. Reminder: April is less than three weeks away. Also reminder: Vermont can be awfully damn cold in April.

The governor’s lame attempt to dress this up in the language of compassion goes like this: the voucher program is “a failed system” that doesn’t help people transition out of homelessness. Well, sure, if that’s how you define it. But it’s a success in keeping roofs over people’s heads, in preventing the worst outcomes of homelessness. I wonder if Scott would also like to kill Meals on Wheels because Granny might get a hot dinner today but she’ll just be hungry again tomorrow.

Even if you ignore the moral dimension of needlessly unsheltering hundreds of people, the actual financial costs of doing so will be much higher than $1.8 million. But hey, it won’t come directly out of the state’s FY2024 budget, so it’s all good, right?

According to the governor’s spokesperson Jason Maulucci, Scott objects to a total of $15 million added to the BAA. Reminder that the Legislature felt free to add that because Treasurer Mike Pieciak told them Scott’s budget adjustment gave his office $14 million more than he needed. In other words, the Legislature pretty much balanced out its budget adjustments compared to the governor’s own proposal.

The bulk of that $15 million would fund production of affordable housing (which, ahem, would help solve the problem, sir). About $1.7 million would provide additional staffing for the Attorney General’s office (currently up to its neck in filing lawsuits against President Trump’s assaults on democracy and common decency) and the Human Rights Commission (reportedly in dire need of more staffing to keep pace with record numbers of complaints, and that was before Orange Hitler took office). None of that seems unreasonable.

Scott’s argument is that we need to keep the $15 million to offset the potentially devastating effects of the Trump administration’s chainsaw approach to governance. The problem is, $15 million is looking like a small drop in a very large bucket. We’re probably facing budgetary havoc in any case. And one has to ask, why are the most vulnerable Vermonters being asked to sacrifice their shelter so we can save a little money?

I mean, the governor is fond of talking about how Vermonters have reached their tax capacity. Haven’t the homeless reached their capacity to endure unsheltering? They have indeed. Long ago, in fact. But “Governor Nice Guy” — you know, the one who constantly claims that one of his core principles is protecting the most vulnerable — doesn’t seem to give a good goddamn about them.