When Gov. Ted Strickland officially unveils his two-year budget bill this week, some of the numbers are likely to be met with skepticism from several lawmakers, especially Republicans.

They point to cases in which figures for education funding and budget shortfalls appear to have been inflated, and they question whether other numbers presented to the public represent accurate accounting or political spin.

"The concern is, how accurate are the current figures we have now?" said Sen. John A. Carey Jr., a Wellston Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "It just brings up some questions about how the whole thing is put together."

Working thus far from a budget-summary document and statements from the Democratic governor, his budget director and top aides, lawmakers have tried to piece together how the mix of state tax revenue, federal stimulus dollars and one-time state money fits into a two-year, $54.7 billion balanced budget.

One lingering issue is just how much additional money school districts really get under the plan. Strickland says the number is about $925 million over the two-year budget cycle, but some question whether he is properly adding up the columns.

Under Strickland's accounting, if you got a $2,000 pay raise in each of the next two years, you'd be receiving a $6,000 pay increase after two years-- the first $2,000 both this year and next, and the additional $2,000 next year.

In budget terms, Strickland proposes giving schools an extra $322 million in fiscal year 2010, which starts July 1. Then the state is giving schools that extra $322 million again in 2011, plus another $282 million.

Strickland officials say that equals about $925 million. "This is the only accurate way to account for what the state will be spending," said Amanda Wurst, spokeswoman for Strickland.

Others disagree.

"I think the best word I can use for that is disingenuous,  " said Richard Sheridan, a former state budget official and financial consultant for the Center for Community Solutions in Cleveland. "It's not real money."

Normally, Carey said, total budget increases are figured by adding the first- and second-year increases together, which would mean than Strickland's school-funding increase would total $604 million.

Carey said he understands why Strickland officials add it up the way they do -- $925 million is the actual cost to the two-year budget -- but he said it's confusing.

"I think it leaves school districts thinking they're going to get more money than what they're going to get," he said. "It seems like the governor made a statement that there was going to be a billion dollars more in school funding, and OBM (the state budget office) had to try to figure out a way to get it close to a billion."

Republicans and other observers continue to have a tough time believing that the proposed budget, which is held up by about $7 billion in one-time state and federal money, can be sustained in future years without a tax increase or huge cuts.

Sheridan agrees with administration officials that previous budgets also have relied on one-time money, but he said it was not to this magnitude.

He argued the state should take steps to address the imbalance now so it's not as large a problem in the future. That could include a modest tax increase in this budget or canceling the final piece of a phased-in state income-tax cut, he said.

"It's not a question of whether we're going to need a tax increase, but what kind, when we do it, and how large it is," Sheridan said.

Two years ago, state Budget Director J. Pari Sabety bragged to lawmakers that "for the first time in Ohio history, this executive budget has projected revenues and expenses for the next four years."

Republicans have noticed that the four-year projection does not exist in this budget -- further fueling speculation that the budget can be sustained only for the next two years, just enough to carry Strickland through re-election in 2010.

"It was clear after attempting for the first time to provide spending forecasts in the previous budget that improved forecasting tools are needed," Wurst said. "OBM is currently working to develop those improved forecasting models for future use."

Strickland has resisted a tax increase and has vowed to protect the tax cuts enacted by Republicans in 2005.

When asked last week whether it is a foregone conclusion that the use of one-time money would require a tax increase in the future, the governor flatly replied, "No, it is not.

"There are those who thought I would have to raise taxes this time," Strickland said. "I'm a creative, innovative decision-maker."

The governor also challenged his critics to come up with a better alternative, saying "the only thing I'm hearing is (criticism about) one-time money."

His critics say they want to see the actual budget bill, which has been delayed by two weeks as state budget officials try to figure out just how much Ohio is getting from the federal stimulus package.

"I don't know what the better way is because he won't actually give us numbers we can trust," said Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, the former House speaker.

"The numbers are becoming an issue of credibility at this point. I don't know how to do anything better, because I don't even know truly what the problem is, because they haven't given us a budget."

jsiegel@dispatch.com

mniquette@dispatch.com