By Angelo Lynn
Before Vermonters label Gov. Scott heartless for denying “children, pregnant women, disabled Vermonters, veterans, and those fleeing domestic violence” access to the motel voucher program set to expire on April 1, voters should consider the governor’s position. For the past several terms he has run on the mantra of “affordability,” not aiding Vermonters in need nor addressing their problems.
Among other things, that has meant rejecting legislation that helps build more affordable housing, rejecting innovative efforts to tackle Vermonters’ high fuel costs, and rejecting money for childcare programs that help struggling young families.
So, it is in character that Gov. Scott vetoed H.141, a mid-term budget adjustment act he considered excessive. In that much of the funding he rejected does make living in Vermont more affordable for those in need (young families, for instance), he has a point that Vermont taxpayers can’t afford every good idea proposed. His blanket approach to denying those “good ideas” has earned him solid support throughout the state, though we suspect voters forget all the ideas he rejects and focus instead on what has become his administrative and campaign catchword: affordability.
But like Trump’s MAGA slogan, Scott’s “affordability” has many blind spots and unintended consequences.
His latest rejection is one. In a magnanimous and conciliatory letter to Scott following his veto, the Democratic Speaker of the House Jill Krowinski and Senate President pro tem Phil Baruth eliminated $14.9 million the governor asked for. That funding would have helped build more affordable housing units, helped communities recover from recent flooding, and used $1.8 million to extend a program that has kept houseless Vermonters in motels during the winter.
The only thing the two Democrats asked the governor was to extend the motel voucher program to the most vulnerable Vermonters. And they did so by asking the Dept. of Children and Families to use “existing funds,” not new funds, to extend the program’s winter weather rules through June 30.
Without the extension, nearly 600 adults and over 160 children could lose their access to motel-based shelter on April 1, with “many more” becoming ineligible in the following weeks.
Scott, however, denounced the extension, calling it a “failed program” that’s too expensive to continue. The program is no doubt imperfect, yet true to form Scott and his team have not proposed any solution.
“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,” said Rep. Robin Scheu, D-Middlebury, Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations. “For four years, we have received nothing. Instead of working with us on a path forward, he vetoed the BAA over three more months of shelter for people who have nowhere else to go.”
Since Rep. Scheu’s statement, Scott thought better of his stance and agreed with Democrats to allow families with children to remain housed in the program, but not so for pregnant women, disabled veterans or those fleeing domestic violence.
The governor’s decision to reject most of the motel program isn’t without political consideration. He’s popular largely because the public has bought into a mistaken aura: that’s he’s been a good leader by virtue of saying no to spending. Scott knows the motel program isn’t popular with a majority of voters, and it’s a way for him to show he’s tough on keeping Vermont “affordable” by denying a pittance of spending.
The far more difficult challenge, of course, is to solve problems affordably. That he has done so little to lead the state in solving its many challenges, and yet remained so popular, is what Democrats in the Legislature find so frustrating. But until voters recognize the difference between “solving problems affordably” and an “affordability agenda,” Scott can toss the most vulnerable Vermonters out in the street while too many Vermonters continue to applaud.
