The Times is right on this one, and your revenue numbers are wrong. It appears that you are confusing numbers from specific sources with the total revenue. You can find 2008 and 2009 (and more) here: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/revenue_hist.html If you look carefully you will see that total revenue for 2009 was about $84 billion, while 2008 was about $87 billion.
The reason for the budget shortfall was a combination of a very moderate fall off in revenues and a refusal to do much to thwart the taxeaters’ demands on the spending side. You are right that the current deceitful budget that Perry signed is something that isn’t all that common in the history of Texas budgeting, but I didn’t say that it was. Rather, my point was that this massive CA-style budget fraud was signed-off on by Perry. In his defense one could argue that it is more a reflection on the Rs in the legislature, but Perry certainly didn’t make it an issue, and he should have.
Part of what you are not taking into account is that Perry has presided over a state that generally has not engaged in as many fiscal follies as other states. Perry isn’t responsible for that. Moreover, although Perry for most of his tenure has not been a wild spender, this last budget will become an issue in his campaign because it is grossly irresponsible.
Daniels, on the other hand, inherited significant economic problems. In response, he has fired government workers, held spending below the rate of inflation, etc. Perry hasn’t done anything like that. In fact, Perry has been adding large numbers of government workers, as was pointed out in the candidate debates in Perry’s re-election.
Just comparing a few numbers for the two states doesn’t get to the point, however. The issue is, what has the governor done with the hand he was dealt? Perry got a relatively good hand and, until this year, didn’t worsen it. Daniels got a bad hand, but has markedly improved it.
Perry is not the stout conservative that you think he is, but he is also not the RINO that others are irresponsibly calling him. Having said that, he is probably about the best we can do under the circumstances.
Considering the discrepancy in the amount of the shortfall, I will accept your source as correct on that. However, that does not change the data on the total increase in per capita spending over the 10 years or the figures on the debt. We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not Perry is a “strong conservative” based on that data, and disagree on whether Mitch Daniels or Perry has the better fiscal record. Obviously, I think my argument on those points are better supported by the data, but just as obviously, you disagree, and I don’t think we are going to persuade one another.