“Governor Nice Guy” is having a bit of a tantrum. The cause: legislative Democrats are making him look bad, and he doesn’t like it.

At issue, naturally, is the General Assistance Emergency Housing program, familiarly known as the motel voucher program. The Legislature passed a Budget Adjustment Act that would have extended winter eligibility rules through the end of June, thus preventing a mass unsheltering when the winter rules expire on April 1. Scott vetoed it, largely because he cannot stand the voucher program and would do absolutely anything to kill it once and for all. Except, you know, proposing an alternative.

Or, as House Appropriations Committee chair Rep. Robin Scheu put it, “We have been asking the Governor for four years to develop a plan to transition away from the hotel/motel program and create a long-term solution to homelessness. For four years we have received nothing from the governor or his administration.”

Anyway. Legislative leadership then made a counter-offer: They’re willing to drop virtually all of their (relatively minimal) spending adds from the BAA if the winter eligibility rules are extended. They say the Department of Children and Families already has enough funds to make that happen.

And ‘Governor Nice Guy” has shown them the back of his hand. Nope, not gonna do it.

As was the case previously, Administration Secretary Sarah Clark was tasked with tossing more spaghetti at the wall in an effort to gin up a convincing rationale for the governor’s refusal. It wasn’t the proposal per se that’s problematic, she insisted, it was the fact that leadership went public with their counter-proposal “instead of continuing good faith negotiations” with the administration.

Oh, so the issue is that they made you look bad? I see.

Maybe they went public because they knew Scott was going to say “No.” Maybe his people had already made that clear in one of those “good faith” bargaining sessions. Maybe leadership was pulling a sharp political maneuver — which is the kind of thing that Phil Scott does all the damn time. But he doesn’t appreciate it when other people borrow tools from his bag. Especially when it works.

In her communication to leadership, Clark also complained that the voucher system is “a failed program.” And if she’s going to repeat herself, so will I. The voucher system is not designed to solve homelessness, it’s meant to mitigate its worst effects. It keeps roofs over people’s heads. That’s a success in my book. Of course, there have to be other efforts to actually address the fundamental issue of homelessness. Efforts the administration HAS. NOT. BOTHERED. TO. MAKE.

More spaghetti: In case you thought the administration was acting on principle — either in wanting to limit the voucher program or in rejecting leadership’s hardball tactic — Clark offered a counter-counter-proposal. The administration is willing to extend winter rules, but only for some participants. 429 households, in fact. Which would seem to be a substantial majority of the roughly 760 Vermonters at risk of losing shelter on April 1.

Pardon my well-earned cynicism, but it sounds like the administration realizes it’s been outflanked by those foxy legislative leaders. It is, once again, in a position of choosing cruelty as a deliberate policy choice for no good reason, and it’s trying to find the politically acceptable level of cruelty. It appears that unsheltering 760 people is too high, so now they’re aiming for something under 200, more or less. The cost difference is, by state budget standards, minimal.

Because it wouldn’t be a debate over the voucher program if “Governor Nice Guy” wasn’t bound and determined to kick at least some people out on the street. It’s his go-to move.

Postscript. The fact that the caffeinated gentleman in the above image bears a faint resemblance to a younger Jason Gibbs? Mere coincidence.