Spending doesn’t necessarily need to go up proportionately to maintain “current services” unless you equate “current services” with per capita spending. Not all services/spending functions are linear, and there are plenty of areas in which Texas government could operate more efficiently. Perry and the semi-RINO legislature have spent too much - partly because they have been unwilling to do much about illegals.
Perry’s spending record looks good compared to states like Illinois, but it isn’t strongly conservative.
Having said that, I’ll certainly support Perry if he is the nominee.
Well, let's look at that contention.
Per capita spending went from $2109 in 2000 to $3197 in 2010, an increase of 51.5%. But combined population and inflation in Texas increased 39% during that period, leaving a "real" increase in per capita spending of 12.5%, or an increase of 1.25% per year.
The per capita debt of the state of Texas went from $918 in 2000 to $1086 in 2010, an increase of 18.3%, When you take into consideration population and inflation, you have a decrease of 20.7%, or an annual decrease of 2.07%.
During the same period, the state GDP grew by 56.1%, so GDP grew faster than state spending.
By the way, state spending in Alaska was $8900 per capita in 2000, and was $13363 per capita in 2010 - more than 4 times the per capita spending by Texas. And the state debt for Alaska was $6614 per capita in 2000 and was $9333 per capita in 2010 - more than three times the per capita debt of Texas. Is that one of the conservative states you were thinking of?