Who cares what Ehrlich would do? He is not the one RUINING Maryland's economy, OMALLEY is. These funds WILL increase the baseline budget which we don't need.

Just like Senator Ed Kasemeyer SIGNING on to legislation tahe will INCREASE THE STATE DEBT by OVER $2 MILLION in these tough time he wants MORE STATE DEBT! 'Is he insane or just STUPID and could care less about us measly serfs?

You may be right.
One thing I loved about Gov. Ehrlich is one knew where he stood. With Gov. O'Malley, one never knows. I believe he governors with his finger. He holds it to the wind every day to see which way it is blowing politically, which explains all the lies.
Sadly, President Obama is doing the same. Each and everyday the people become more and more confused. The proof is in the stock market. It continues to fall. Our President should stay in Washington pondering a solution, and stop talking so much. He continues to promise fake numbers but numbers do not lie.
Taking a stand is hard. It requires a thoughtful and steadfast approach to what ails us, not more political talking points on what the people want to hear. Feelings come and go with each waking day, tough decisions are slept on each and every night.

Ehrlich's last budget grew by 12.5%. His four budgets grew more than his predecessor's last four. Fiscal conservative? yeah, right.

The stock market has slid in the last 3 weeks. It TANKED while this President was still a Senator. There's also this thing where companies report their earnings that are all down, based on the economy that was put into motion years ago. That tends to send a market lower. That's not a trend unique to this President.

The hard stances now would actually send the stock market down in a further spiral. Cutting funding, letting companies go bankrupt and sorting it out later would cripple the stock market. You can't play the stock market sliding card and then say take the hard stance. You can say take the hard stance and let the market correct itself. That is a truly conservative argument. It may even be the right argument in the long run, but to think it wouldn't be without a complete bloodbath is very dangerous.

Also, Ehrlich actually did ruin MD"s economy for a while. The last time I didn't get a scheduled raise as a state employee is when he took office.

In a move that could be genious or idiocy depending on how things turn out, they're sticking to a polition the conservative base loves in spite of current high poll ratings for the president and his handling of the economic crisis.

As a majority of democrat U.S. Representatives, such as Elijah Cummings, proved regarding the bank bailout last fall, polling doesn't mean anything when you believe you're smarter than your constituency.

What makes polling reliable now that a few republican governors are going against supposedly popular opinion? Is it only ok for democrats to spit in the eye of the people they represent?

It is interesting to watch how difficult it is for ideologues on both sides to adjust to the emerging, and vital, pragmatism made necessary by this current crisis. Not talking the nonsense of "centrism" here, but true pragmatism. Sanford, Jindal et al. can grandstand all they want, and I think you are correct in thinking Ehrlich would have been with them. While it seems necessary to raise national profile, the bulk of the stimulus spending is above and beyond governors' control. They may score a few points with their party faithful, but it is pointless in the end.

And, Carole: We are living through a dramatic moment in economic history. The economic tectonic movements presently underway are well beyond the pedestrian metric that is the Dow Jones. Your comment reminds me of the shortsighted CNBC cabal that scored both Rubini and Taleb for a segment and could do nothing more than ask them if they were feeling bullish and what stocks they were considering. Total failure to digest reality all due to stock obsession. The ultimate impact of the stimulus package, mortgage plan, TARP, and pending nationalization of banks will be known at some point in the future. The stock market, however, is not an indicator of success or failure of current efforts.

First of all, I'm unsure of your level of intelligence since you misspelled genius. Next time, you and your editor need to run spell-check. This does speak volumes about your arrogance as you choose to write an article and not use spell-check to check your spelling. This means you do not believe yourself to ever be wrong, now do you?

Bob Erhlich, a serious Republican, was also a governor who was genuinely concerned about the well being of the state and I believe that he put this state ahead of politics. If he felt that it would have been best for MD to accept the money, I'm confident he would have. You feel he would not have out of stubbornness. But again, you cannot spell so how can you maintain an intelligent opinion.

Finally, Einstein... it was Gov. Rick Perry of Texas who spearheaded this whole thing, not Jindal. he just got on board. Considering that his state still have not relocated their survivors of Katrina (there are people still living under bridges), I find Louisiana to not be in a suitable position to turn down money for anything. Mardis Gras will not fix everything.

A Conservative listener calls a Progressive TV show to discuss the Stimulus Bill, hilarity ensues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H156Rrc0iL4

Anonymous
Ehrlich's last budget grew by 12.5%. His four budgets grew more than his predecessor's last four. Fiscal conservative? yeah, right.

Last time I checked Ehrlich fully funded Thornton. The last time Thornton HAS been fully funded.

Let he who is without typos cast the first stone...

("as you choose to write an article and not use spell-check to check your spelling"), ("Considering that his state still have not relocated their survivors of Katrina")

Grandstanding aside, the governors who are rejecting stimulus money do have a point.
The money comes with lots and lots of strings attached that will affect their budgets for years to come. Their point, I believe is that they are sacrificing the future for a short term gain.

The historical legacy is there for this kind of thing. Many states after the revolution, settled their own debts rather than let the federal government handle it, which eventually happened for the states that were insolvent or unwilling to do so. I suppose that was the first bailout. States like Maryland were none too pleased that their fiscal responsibility was rewarded by using shared tax revenue to bail out others who weren't so independent.

The precepts of federalism dictate that if the federal gov't is going bonkers and you can opt out it as a state - you probably should. Sustainability is the key and Maryland cannot rely on other states to bail her out.

What makes us incapable of handling our own affairs? Oh right, it's easier this way.

Look to recent history for another clue.

In May 2003 when Ehrlich was governor, Congress passed and President Bush signed a $20 billion bailout of state and local governments. Maryland's state and local share was around $500 million.
Smaller recession, smaller bailout, but the point sticks.

Gov. Ehrlich didn't complain when he was on the receiving end of a federal bailout in 2003, which throws a wet blanket on his criticism of the current bailout.

- Steve Lebowitz

Bryan, it isn't so much about "handling our own affairs" as it is a massive economic downturn that is super-ceding our efforts TO control our own affairs.

O'Malley has already cut more out of the budget than Bobby ever did. Any budgetary increase has more to do with inflation and population growth than any "new spending."

And it still is not enough. When you look at places like California and Florida, where the foreclosure crisis has hit tremendously hard, you see two states that are basically in a state of emergency.

This is a unique situation, and most economists agree that something needs to be done. I recently listened to the head of the Heritage agree that the state money is a good idea - but it is up to the states to use them effectively.

If these GOP gov's wish to use this for political grandstanding they should also take the punishment if they screw over their states even more.

Of course they could be right, we won;t really know for years.

I wish more republican politicians would follow their lead so we can rid the world of their ilk! The more they talk the lower their support gets. Please keep it up! republican roadkill,what could be better!

Andy

What a miserable waste of space! Ehrlich, the poor maryland Goopers man's substandard imititation of Dubya, the boy king? Frat boy phool and GOP tool? No one cares what Ehrlich might have done; there is zero chance he will ever be close to the levers of power ever again.

Pay no attention to Justafacts, aka Steve Lebowitz.
Blinded by his head over heals love for Martin O'Malley, vs. his ugly hate for Ehrlich, he will never justify his so called facts.
Why Martin O'Malley can't rein this guy in is beyond me.
Maybe Justafacts is the one and only Martin O'Malley.

P.S.
This won't get posted.

When my opponent does it, its called "political grandstanding". When I do it, its called showing some backbone.

Why don't you just ask him? It is not as if Bob Ehrlich shys away from talking to the media. I have seen him on MSNBC and Hannity & Colmes the other night, and might I add he always seems professional and intelligent on these shows.

I think he would've restricted using stimulus dollars to increase Maryland's overall budget except for one-time/capital projects. Increasing all of the spending when we're $2 billion in deficit does nothing but delay the problem.

O'Malley kept saying he inheireted problems and he is still saying it, as if he hasn't had ample time to "fix" the problems or made promises to end the deficit with tax hikes once-and-for-all.