Except for the crazy Republicans (governors mostly) who voted not to accept federal dollars for public transit funding or who voted not to expand Medicare coverage "Because its part of Obamacare and thats bad!" The Federal government would have paid for it?!?!
Moreover, if they implement the program then it's permanent. Their own federal legislators could no longer go to Washington and argue for repeal because they'll have the constituents in their own districts up in arms if they try to cancel a program their constituents are already receiving benefits under. Whereas if the governors refuse the money then the state's federal legislators will have every incentive to fight to have the money stripped from the budget in future years.
The response from Blue State governors should be to refuse federal "Homeland Security" money. Give their own legislators cover to repeal that. I mean really, how many police departments legitimately need more SWAT teams?
Because nobody else does. If your state's legislators aren't bringing federal money into your state while all the other states' legislators are passing federal programs funded by your state's taxpayers, you are going to alienate your constituents and lose your seat. Nobody is interested in less federal funding unless it also means lower federal taxes.
The problem is fundamentally that some states aren't pulling their weight, paying substantially less in federal taxes than they receive in federal funding, and those states' legislators (who incidentally are largely Republicans) have absolutely no interest in turning off the federal spigot. So if you're from the North East or the West Coast, you can't really do much to keep Uncle Sam's hand out of your pocket, at which point it becomes extremely attractive to put in for your own boondoggles to try and claw some of it back.
It's not ideology, it's political arithmetic. If you don't like it, figure out how to prevent the South from diverting such a massive quantity of federal dollars into their defense contractors.