Here is a different take on Daniels and Indiana. Bear in mind that it matters what you start with: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol20No1/Ruhl20.1.html
Here the NYT notes that Daniels held the growth in spending below the rate of inflation, something that Perry did not accomplish: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/business/economy/05leonhardt.html
I don’t want to be sidelined into a discussion of Daniels and Perry. Nevertheless, Daniels has done more to manage the fiscal situation responsibility in Indiana than Perry has in Texas. Again, if you really knew the inside game here you would see that Perry and the worthless Rs in Austin closed our roughly $17 billion budget gap by deferring payments into the next fiscal period, which is a move exactly out of the Arnold, Brown, and Davis playbook in CA. And the reason for the dishonest accounting tricks was exactly the same - no one wants to anger powerful taxeating constituencies.
Perry talks a hardcore conservative game, but the reality is something else. Other Texans will tell you the same thing. He is certainly conservative enough to be unelectable to statewide office in CA, but that doesn’t make him a hardcore conservative. We could do a lot worse than Perry, but there is no point in buying into an illusion.
You have overlooked one particularly delightful thing about our governor: “moderate” Rs (especially Eastern “country club” Rs) and liberals hate him - not so much because of his policies, but because in terms of background and culture he is everything that they loathe. I remember the look on Dan Rather’s face when he had to announce that Reagan had won. I would love to see Matthews’ face if he has to announce that Perry has won (if it were Bachmann, Matthews wouldn’t make it on camera because he would have had a stroke and would be frothing at the mouth while writhing on the floor.)
Here is the site where you can go and actually look up the growth in spending for all of the states, and not rely on the New York Times: US Government Spending.
Nevertheless, Daniels has done more to manage the fiscal situation responsibility in Indiana than Perry has in Texas.
I'm sorry, but the numbers don't bear that out.
Again, if you really knew the inside game here you would see that Perry and the worthless Rs in Austin closed our roughly $17 billion budget gap by deferring payments into the next fiscal period, which is a move exactly out of the Arnold, Brown, and Davis playbook in CA.
Perhaps you might consider that the reason for that was because state revenues went from $85.5 billion in 2008 down to $45.6 Billion in 2009 - an almost 50% drop in one year. It wasn't caused by massive overspending by the state or fiscal irresponsibility - it was caused by a loss of revenue. That left a big hole in the budget. However, the next year, revenues started to increase again, to $62.5 Billion. Now, do you think they should have massively increased taxes in order to cover a short-term hole in the budget? Or was it better to cover the hole with cuts and budget transfers for one cycle? Which is the more "conservative" solution? Higher taxes or budget cuts?
By the way, don't even think of comparing Texas to California on budget hijinks. What happened this year was a one-time deal in Texas - California has been using smoke and mirrors to balance the budget for at least 10 years.