Hooray, Phil Scott is going to get what he wants. Again.

Every time there’s an inflection point in the General Assistance Emergency Housing program (d/b/a the motel voucher program), it’s always the same thing. Scott takes a hard line against spending a dime more on vouchers… we get close to a mass unsheltering… and then he does a last-minute walk-back, offering a compromise to keep at least some people in the program.

But he simply cannot include everyone. Some folks just HAVE to be unsheltered. It’s like his one and only bedrock principle when it comes to vouchers. Some folks have gotta lose.

And here we are again. Scott rejected the Legislature’s move to extend winter eligibility rules through June, and later — as he always does — he offered a partial extension, which belies his supposedly principled argument against spending any more money on vouchers.

This is nothing new. So for the rest of this post, my attention turns to the Republican Senate caucus’ role in backstopping the governor, and the deeply misleading press release put out after the vote by caucus leader Sen. Scott Beck.

On Friday, the last legislative day before Tuesday’s expiration of the voucher program’s winter rules, the Democratic majority sought a suspension of the Senate rules so that an immediate vote could be taken on extending full winter eligibility for voucher recipients. Well, it was actually a vote on the Legislature’s second hack at a Budget Adjustment Act, but the only bone of contention was the voucher program.

The Republicans unanimously voted “No,” blocking a rules suspension and ensuring that the Senate couldn’t act on the BAA before winter eligibility was safely in the rear-view. Which protected the governor from having to once again veto the BAA and put his name to a mass unsheltering.

And will you look at that forecast. On the night after the winter rules end, parts of Vermont are in for a snowfall! But hey, calendar says it’s spring, so you folks enjoy sleeping in tents or cars or wherever else you can find to rest your weary heads.

The Republican caucus was only doing its job. Arguably its duty, upholding their leader’s position on a contentious issue. I can’t really blame them.

But I do want to spotlight Scott Beck’s post-vote statement, which was an attempt to conceal the heartlessness of the vote behind a façade of caring and concern. An unconvincing façade, I should add.

Beck began by citing three reasons for his caucus’ stance. Let’s take ’em one at a time, shall we?

Firstly, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this program since it was expanded during the pandemic, money that could have been spent far more efficiently on congregate shelters and agencies committed to solving Vermont’s homeless crisis.

There’s a lot there, and it’s all bad. Yes, we have spent hundreds of millions on the program. Much of that money came from the federal government. And perhaps it could have been spent more effectively, but again, who the hell is in charge of the state government? That would be… the governor. If he thought there was a better way to spend the money, why has he never, ever proposed an alternative to vouchers?

I should also note that bit about “congregate shelters.” We’re talking big rooms full of cots with very basic amenities. Congregate shelters are a terrible way to house the homeless. Many voucher recipients are simply not capable of coping with a congregate setting because of mental illness, disability, substance use issues, or other factors.

On to point two:

Secondly, this program does nothing to address the underlying causes of homelessness, whether they be mental health or the rapidly rising costs of housing in our State. Congregate shelters are far better equipped to help our most vulnerable than leaving them isolated and stranded in hotel rooms. Vermont agencies can provide wrap-around services, counseling, medical care, and help people transition to permanent stable housing.

When Beck says “congregate shelters,” think “warehouses.” The last time the Scott administration set up some congregate shelters, they were awful places. So awful that very few people actually used them.

Beck is correct that the voucher program doesn’t address the underlying causes of homelessness. It wasn’t designed to do so. It’s a temporary measure to prevent suffering on a massive scale. And, need I say this again, why hasn’t the Scott administration done anything “to address the underlying causes of homelessness?” Other than, you know, permitting reform.

Okay then, point three:

Thirdly, Vermont has experienced 135 deaths in the hotel/motel program since 2020. Of those deaths, 42% were from poisoning, mostly drug overdoses, there have been two homicides, and many other deaths were caused by preexisting conditions that could have been more properly addressed in congregant housing.

And hey presto, there’s Human Services Secretary Jenney Samuelson’s belatedly-fabricated statistic allegedly proving that state-paid motel rooms are death traps. But it’s what we call a context-free statistic. It doesn’t tell you how many people would have died without the voucher program. An impressive array of studies suggests that the death count would have been substantially higher — say, 400-500 or more — in the absence of the voucher program. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And again with the congregate housing. Which would, somehow, magically come with an array of medical, mental health, and other support services.

And again again again, the Scott administration has never proposed any such arrangement on anything like the scale required. Sure, they created a couple of family shelters last fall, but those shelters offered only a tiny fraction of the capacity required. Has the administration ever proposed an expansion of those shelters adequte to meet the need? That’d be a resounding “No.”

Beck later brags on a Samuelson statistic that actually shows how terrible her agency has been at managing the program. He cited Samuelson’s claim that the state has already pre-authorized “nearly 500 households” to remain in motel rooms on April 1.

Here’s the thing. Samuelson made that statemtn on March 26 — only five days before the expiration of winter rules. By that point, the state should have pre-authorized a lot more households. That “nearly 500 households” is an embarrassment, not a point of pride.

One more thing. Beck claims that the administration has proposed enough congregate shelters “to ensure that none of the unhoused are left out on the street come April 1.’ That’s just bullshit, and Beck knows it. The administration has floated plans to add a few more family shelters, but they won’t be on line anytime soon, certainly not before April 1, which as of this writing is [checks calendar] TOMORROW. And even if they all magically appeared like cot-filled Brigadoons, they would only be able to shelter a portion of those losing their motel spaces.

The administration and its Republican lawmakers are getting more aggressive in defending Scott’s record on vouchers. Problem is, their arguments don’t bear up under the gentlest of scrutiny. But you know, it’s hard to defend the indefensible. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go into debate with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might want. The Republicans are holding a terrible hand, and they’re doing their best to bluff their way through it.

In the meantime, thanks to Scott and his Republican friends, hundreds of households will be exited from the voucher program with nowhere to go. And the already-overburdened helping agencies will once again be thrown into the breach. They are dedicated people who will do their level best to minimize the suffering and death. We are lucky to have them, and we should stop exploiting them at every turn.