When Gov. Ted Strickland went to Washington last week to argue for more federal stimulus money, he painted a dire picture that had Ohio facing a $1 billion budget deficit, the loss of 9,000 jobs, prison closings and other massive cuts.

But what the governor didn't say in his plea to Congress was that hundreds of millions of other stimulus dollars that weren't being counted in his proposed two-year budget were in the works for Ohio. That has prompted critics to complain that he was overstating the need for the money.

"The governor was out there telling people there would be prison riots and children wouldn't get their immunization if one version of the stimulus package didn't pass," said state Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, the former House speaker. "Then we come to find out those problems never really were real."

And with the state planning to use $5.8 billion in stimulus money for the current budget and to balance the upcoming one that starts July 1, opponents continue to say that it sets up a major tax increase or radically slashed spending in the 2012-13 budget.

"We'll continue to analyze this and work with the administration to have a cash-flow strategy that passes the smell test," said Rep. Ron Amstutz, R-Wooster, the ranking minority member of the House Finance Committee. "I don't think this one does."

Strickland insisted yesterday that he was honestly reacting to the best information he had at the time.

He lashed out at his critics, challenging them to say what they would do differently.

"If people look at what's happening in a lot of other states and what we are accomplishing in this budget, I think any fair-minded person would say that we're doing pretty well and that we are being, in fact, responsible," Strickland said, noting that he is protecting education funding despite the deep recession.

"I am not going to let those who may be motivated by political reasons to distract me by their criticisms. I would invite them to say what they would do. Would they disinvest in education? Would they let college tuition explode? Would they raise taxes?"

Strickland said that when he wrote to the state's congressional delegation on Feb. 9 warning of the "devastating impact" of the Senate version of the stimulus bill, he was reacting to the proposed cut of $920 million for government services from the House-passed version.

The final version of the bill restored an estimated $327 million of that funding. Strickland now says that total, along with increased stimulus funding for Medicaid and education, should allow the state to avoid significant cuts.

But administration documents show that although the Senate version would have cut more than $1 billion in federal money that Strickland had included in his budget, it also included $590 million in other funds beyond what he had budgeted.

That means that despite his dire warnings, when all the funding in the final version is accounted for, the state is expected to use about $130 million more in stimulus money than what the governor initially budgeted.

Strickland insisted that there wasn't that level of detail during the process, and that he was convinced would have been a major hole in his budget -- especially because the Senate cut affected funding with the most flexible uses.

"Someone may want to say that we weren't really concerned because we knew that money was going to be there," the governor said. "From my perspective, that's not the case. I was truly concerned and remained concerned until, quite frankly, the final hours."

Critics also point out that in addition to using about $5 billion in stimulus money to balance the upcoming two-year budget, Strickland would drain the state's $948 million rainy-day fund and use about $1 billion in other one-time money. That means that nearly $7 billion in one-time money would be used to balance the budget that takes effect July 1. That money won't be around for the 2012-13 budget.

Strickland's own forecast projects that revenue will increase by less than $1 billion in 2012-13, seemingly leaving at least a $6 billion hole.

The only times that Ohio has come close to generating a $6 billion jump in tax revenue were in 1994-95, after a mix of increases in sales, income and cigarette taxes, and in 2004-05, after a penny increase in the sales tax. But neither increase topped $4.2 billion over two years.

Strickland's team says the idea is to get Ohio through the next two years without major cuts and be in a position to grow once the recession ends.

Husted's reaction: "You can use one-time money if there's a reasonable expectation that you can make up for it down the road. In this circumstance, there is no way we can make up for it down the road."

Strickland insists that his use of one-time money in this budget doesn't necessarily mean a huge tax increase or major cuts are ahead in the next budget, after he stands for re-election next year.

"There are those who thought I would have to raise taxes this time," he said. "I'm a creative, innovative decision-maker. I'm bragging about myself there a little bit, and I don't normally do that. But I'm a solid thinker, I'm a mature decision-maker."

mniquette@dispatch.com

jsiegel@dispatch.com

---