Gov. Phil Scott has dug in his heels on the General Assistance emergency housing program, and it’s not a pretty sight. He used his Wednesday news conference to decry the Legislature’s failure to “come to the table,” but the real meaning of that phrase, in his mind, is that they failed to do precisely what he wanted them to do.

I’m sorry, but that’s not coming to the table. That’s jumping up and down on the table and holding your breath until you turn blue.

Look. First, the Legislature adopted a Budget Adjustment Act that included at least 90% of the governor’s proposal plus a few additional items that were almost entirely offset by savings in the Treasurer’s budget. Scott vetoed the bill. The Legislature then passed a new BAA that stripped away almost all their adds on one condition, and only one: That Scott agree to extend winter eligibility rules for the voucher program from April 1 to June 30. By the Legislature’s revised reckoning, the Department of Children and Families already has enough money to make that happen.

And now Scott is stamping his feet and bellowing “No, no, no!”

After he spoke for a few minutes, he summoned Human Services Secretary Jenney Samuelson to the microphone for a performance unlike anything I can remember witnessing. It was a toxic combination of arrogance, bureaucrat-speak, unsupporetd claims, and plucked-from-nowhere statistics, all designed to paint the Legislature as the real offenders for wanting to keep voucher clients cooped up in unsafe, dead-end motel rooms. Instead of, you know, living the free and easy life on the streets or in tents or under viaducts.

Fasten your seat belts, this is gonna be a bumpy ride.

But before we start, I have to say our political media absolutely biffed this one. If there was any coverage of Samuelson’s stone-cold routine, I haven’t found it. Which is remarkable, because her performance was breathtaking in its audacity, not to mention mendacity. (Correction: Samuelson’s claim was reported by, of all the outlets, the Vermont Daily Chronicle.)

The lowest of the low, to me, was Samuelson’s citation of a never-heard-before statistic:

Since the program was subverted from an emergency shelter model to its current iteration, and through the end of 2024… 135 people have died in the program. Of those deaths, 45 were due to poisonings, primarily overdoses. Two died from homicide. And many others succumbed to health conditions that may have been preventable if provided with appropriate care.

It strikes me as downright ghoulish to cite a death count in defense of the administration’s position. And where did these numbers come from? This is the first time the administration has cited death statistics regarding any aspect of our homelessness crisis. They have actively refused to try to gather figures on how many unsheltered people have died or suffered severe consequences. But of course, that figure wouldn’t be politically useful to them.

And what this doesn’t tell you is how many more people would have died without the voucher program. These are some of Vermont’s most vulnerable people: the sick, the disabled, the elderly, women and children fleeing domestic abuse, and yes, people with substance use problems. No matter how many have died in motels, it’s hard to imagine they would have had a better chance to survive if they were unsheltered. But that’s what Samuelson seems to be arguing.

Update! The scientific literature undercuts Samuelson’s implied argument that the voucher program is somehow safer. In 2022, UCLA’s Jessica Richards and Randall Kuhn conducted a massive review of available literature, 42 studies in all. The aggregate finding: Unsheltered homelessness is far more hazardous than the sheltered variety. Higher death rates, higher rates of serious health consequences. In the vernacular, Samuelson is full of shit.

Besides, who the hell has been in charge of this operation for the past eight years? Team Scott, that’s who. Legislative leaders have been begging the administration to propose an alternative to vouchers, which everyone agrees is a stopgap at best. Here’s Democratic Rep. Doug Bishop, a member of the House Human Services Committee, writing in an essay posted Wednesday on VTDigger:

The Legislature is aware of the voucher system’s shortcomings and has sought an alternative from the governor for five years. None has been offered. So, the House Committee on Human Services approved H.91, which builds a more coordinated and comprehensive program to address Vermont’s homelessness crisis. While a Legislature-led effort, the bill reflects significant input from the governor’s administration.

… Initially, $1.8 million in new money was thought necessary to maintain these winter rules for 90 days. Now, the Agency of Human Services acknowledges that funds are available within their current budget. The House’s updated BAA asks only that these existing funds be used to maintain the winter rules for the additional 90 days, no additional funds are necessary.

Samuelson insisted that the administration “has extended and continued to expand shelter capacity,” saying that “over 100 shelter beds” were added in 2024.

That’s her point of pride, her evidence that Team Scott is hard at work.

Let’s see, that amounts to… eight beds a month.

Wow. If we maintain that pace, we’ll be all set in a couple decades, more or less. Sounds like Scott’s climate change policy: Solve it by the year 2050.

Samuelson went on to claim that the state has plans to further expand shelter capacity including some specialized shelters for people with certain needs — but that the Legislature’s budget “strips out” necessary funding. Her statement appears to emerge from an alternate dimension than that inhabited by Rep. Bishop and all the legislative leaders who say they’ve been begging the administration for years to propose an alternative to vouchers.

And if Samuelson’s own agency has told the Legislature that it can continue winter eligibility through June 30 with available money, then where does she get her insistence that vital programs are being stripped of funds?

It is possible that Samuelson is telling the truth and Bishop and his colleagues are lying through their teeth, but given the administration’s track record on this issue, I have trouble believing that any untruthfulness on offer is emanating from anywhere besides the executive branch.

In one of her only remarks to be quoted anywhere in the press, Samuelson called the voucher program “a temporary patch on a gaping wound.” To that I say, well, who’s the doctor overseeing this case? It’s Samuelson, is it not? Samuelson and her boss? They’re the ones leaving “a gaping wound” untreated for years.

Also, any doctor — or any Boy Scout — would tell you that if you’re dealing with a gaping wound, a temporary patch is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Samuelson also said this: “We know what works, so why aren’t we doing it?”

Exactly, Madam Secretary. Why aren’t you doing it?