John or Phyllis or someone...

Could you please, once and for all, clarify the situation on the budget? Ehrlich campaigned that he turned a $4 billion deficit into a $2 billion surplus.

Franchot and others say there is a huge deficit that Ehrlich caused.

I have read some about the "structural deficit" and how the legislature contributed with the education plan that they didn't establish a funding source for, etc...

But, can you give us a bottom line answer....

Was there a budget surplus when Ehrlich left office or was there a defecit?

I'm so tired of hearing legislators on each side say entirely opposite things. It's like one is saying the sky is blue and the other is saying it is green.

Who is right?

(And PLEASE don't say, "both are right" all I want to know is when Ehrlich left office, was there a surplus or a deficit?)

Thanks very much.

Why is it that Leftists cannot use the term "hypocritical" correctly?

The facts are real simple. The day Ehrlich left office there was a budget surplus but only because the new budget had not yet been submitted by the next Governor. Two days after Ehrlich left office, and just 2 days into O'Malley's term, there was a budget deficit. Since O'Malley inherited the surplus from Ehrlich after just 2 days on the job, it hardly seems fair or reasonable to blame O'Malley for the deficit. Thus, the blame falls squarely on Ehrlich.

How is that "real simple"? A $2 billion surplus doesn't become a deficit in 2 days. It sounds like you are saying that Ehrlich's last submitted budget produced $2 billion more than the state needed for its expenses, but WHOEVER submitted the next one (Ehrlich or O'Malley) it would contain a deficit because of mandated spending. Is that accurate? How would that be Ehrlich's fault? Are you suggesting that he should have built up an even BIGGER surplus to help carry over the next budget?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I'm trying to understand how politicians can say diametrically opposed things and not have us laugh one or the other out of the room.

Thanks.

"WHOEVER submitted the next one (Ehrlich or O'Malley) it would contain a deficit because of mandated spending. Is that accurate?"

Yes, that is 100 percent accurate.

The voters of Maryland have already decided that the blame rested with Bobby Haircut. (If he wants to run again, that's fine with me. I love beating a dead horse and it will clear the field from viable repuglican candidates.)

As for the deficit that Bobby Haircut left the citizens of Maryland, it is time to fix our tax structure. Some fix may include tax increases. I am willing to pay for the services I enjoy. This is Maryland - not Mississippi - and we can afford to maintain the quality of services the State provides. I also wish to acknowledge Comptroller Franchot's valiant efforts to collect from tax scofflaws. The Gazette may poke fun at his diligence, but as a tax payer I praise it.

In December 2006, Maryland's spending affordability committee projected that for FY 2008 (the budget that starts in July), under the current policies in place for spending and taxes (that is, if O'Malley continued the Ehrlich policies), the state would have $13.47B in ongoing general fund revenues and $14.75 billion in ongoing spending--so, a shortfall of about $1.3 billion.

For the next year, the deficit would grow to $1.6 billion.

Look it up yourself here:
http://mlis.state.md.us/other/spending_affordability/2006_SAC_Report.pdf

On page 37 (which is page 43 of the pdf).

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT EHRLICH NEVER EVER RAN A DEFICIT DURING HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION. O'MALLEY WILL MOST LIKELY RUN DEFICITS IN EVERY YEAR AND WILL RAISE TAXES.

The MD constitution requires a balanced budget. So, technically, yes, there was never a deficit in the Ehrlich years. However, neither was there ever a year when the state took in as much general fund money as it spent.

how can both be true? Gov. Ehrlich raided the "rainy day" fund, took money from special funds for transportation and land preservation and used it to pay other bills, used accounting gimmicks, etc.

One can only use those tricks for so long. Eventually, the state has to align ongoing spending with ongoing revenues--no matter who is governor.

No, Ehrlich did not raid the rainy day fund. In fact, he managed to quite successfully build it up during his years in office. O'Malley, however, is draining that fund his first year in office. 4.5 % of the $30 billion budget he submitted is paid for directly from the rainy day fund. When that money isn't there to pay for the difference next year, the Dems are going to go ahead raising our taxes.

Also, I love the little jibe Franchot made about the deficit problem Ehrlich never took care of. It's funny, since Dems fought slots for years- which was one of Ehrlich's attempts to correct the structural deficit.

Also, why are the dems always whining about the property tax increase? We hear them complain so much that Republicans only want to give tax breaks to the rich, so why would they complain about increasing the property tax? It's least likely to affect the poor, as the poor are the ones least likely to own property.

You're right. This deficit thing magically appeared in November. If only Ehrlich were still governor, there would be no budget problems. The laws of mathematics would be suspended,and less revenues than spending would mean we have a grand surplus.

To answer the first question - maybe - Ehrlich's last budget, the FY '07 budget, was in balance and left a rainy day fund equivalent to about 11% of general fund revenues.

O'Malley's first budget, the just-passed FY '08 budget, is in balance, but reduces the rainy day fund to the statutorily-required 5% of general fund revenues. However, Ehrlich also would have used the excess rainy day fund revenues.

In response to "responsive to previous comment," Ehrlich left the rainy day fund in much better shape than he found it--it most certainly wasn't raided. Yes, he did "raid" transportation and land preservation revenues to support the general fund. For what it's worth, so did both previous Democratic governors (with the acquiescence of the General Assembly in all cases).

"the deficit" points to the right documents, but for some reason glosses over the fact that O'Malley did virtually nothing in his FY '08 budget to move towards a solution. Would Ehrlich have? Who knows? But the opportunity was there, and it wasn't taken, leaving a $1.498 billion problem that has to be solved in one year. That's presumably much more difficult than solving a $1.498 billion problem in two years.

To see the effects of O'Malley's budget, look for yourself here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/90-day-report/Part-A.pdf (see page A-13 and A-14).

The $1.3 billion Thornton program, passed without revenues to support it, would seem to be an obvious major cause of the current difficulties. Other factors would include the income tax cut, lack of spending restraint, and more...

Unfortunately, it's not so simple. And ultimately, the voters/taxpayers are to blame. You can't get something for nothing.

i am sick and tired of O'Malley and his people making excuses about the deficit and blaming it on Ehrlich, for just once, would O'Malley act like an adult and fix the budget problem that he promised to fix during the election, quit the blame game, whining and excuses, it looks amateurish.

Ehrich raised State property taxes 25% his first year in office, but never acknowledges this fact.
With respect to raising campaign funds and having a radio program to propagate his views for free (with sponsors), isn't that somewhat unethical (and possibly illegal)?

WBAL = We'll Bash All Liberals

I agree with Franchot that one of Erlich's biggest mistakes was raising the state property tax rate. But why isn't Franchot lampooning Nancy Kopp for voting to do the same thing?