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?
Perry began with a somewhat bloated state government, courtesy of George Bush and his D mentor, Bob Bullock. So: 1. we should have had some real cuts at the beginning of Perry’s first term and 2. there is no reason why spending needs to track population growth and inflation.
Because you ignored the second point, which I made previously, consider Texas DMV. In 2001 maintaining “current services” could have been accomplished by expanding the ranks of DMV drones and giving them colas. Alternatively, license renewal and other functions could have been put on line, thereby providing better service than the 2001 “current services” and at a small fraction of the cost of the old DMV “service” model. In recent years DMV has migrated to the net.
There are many other areas in which genuine government services (there aren’t many) could have been maintained or improved while cutting costs, not to mention eliminating entire departments and commissions. Even more important, however, was controlling the border and getting rid of illegals, who are bankrupting hopspitals and causing welfare expenditures to soar. Perry has been very bad on immigration and has not been willing to fight to shrink the bloated government that Austin has created. The reason? Spending has constituencies, and Perry hasn’t been willing to fight.
Texas has too much debt, but that really isn’t Perry’s fault, although I don’t remember Perry ever campaigning against bonds.
In any event, any way you look at it, Perry’s spending record is not strongly conservative.
I don’t care about Alaska - I am not holding up Palin as perfect candidate. In fact, I might prefer Perry to Palin, if she ever decides to get in the race.