Either you love to deliberately misrepresent the truth, or you just don't understand economics. Let me educate you.
First, a better metric to use for looking at state spending is how much is spent per resident. To make a relevant comparison, you need to adjust for inflation. Let's do that:
Texas per capita spending in 2000: $2109.00
Texas per capita spending in 2010: $3197.00
Percentage of increase in per capita spending: (3197-2109)/2109=51.6%
Aggregate inflation 2001-2010: 26.4%
Actual increase in per capita spending 2001-2010: 25.2% or 2.5% per year.
Now you might want to argue that a real spending increase of 2.5% per year is too much, but it is hardly the liberal spending spree you want to portray.
Just for comparison purposes, I decided to look at Alaska's spending growth during Sarah's term.
Alaska per capita spending in 2006: $11020.00
Alaska per capita spending in 2009: $12778.00
Percentage of increase in per capita spending: (12778-11020)/11020=15.6%
Aggregate inflation 2007-2009: 6.2%
Actual increase in real per capita spending 2007-2009: 9.4% or 3.13% per year.
Awww, geez whiz, "smaller government" Perry only ENLARGED government by 25% during his tenure in office! What a great guy! Coulda been enlarged by 50% but thanks to Perry he's enlarging government at a much slower rate! I guess "small government" now means "enlarging government less quickly" instead of actually SHRINKING government.
>> Just for comparison purposes, I decided to look at Alaska's spending growth during Sarah's term. <<
Yawn. More of the "you're waiting for Sarah!" BS from Perry fans. Well, unfortunately for you, since I am NOT "waiting for Sarah" and she's NOT currently a candidate for President, I don't care what the spending levels in Alaska were. Try comparing Perry to people actually in the race.
>> Either you love to deliberately misrepresent the truth, or you just don't understand economics. <<
Looking in the mirror again?