Gov. Rick Perry has a funny way of helping Texas companies.

He wants to reject $555 million in federal stimulus money, because it would expand the state’s unemployment insurance program, and he says that would hurt employers.

"The last thing they need right now is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations," Perry said last week at a photo op in a Houston hardware store. "The math is simple: Employers who have to pay more taxes have less money to meet their payroll, hire new employees and grow their business."

If the math is so simple, why can’t the governor figure this out?

Taking the stimulus money will actually save on taxes, at least in the near term, and it would cover the cost of benefits for an additional 45,000 out-of-work Texans for years to come.

That’s right: Take the stimulus, and Texas businesses avoid taxes. Reject the federal money, and they’ll pay an estimated $60 per employee in additional unemployment taxes in the next year, says the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association in Austin.

It works out this way because the feds are offering a lump-sum payment upfront, recognizing that cash-strapped states need to shore up their unemployment insurance. By October, Texas is projected to be $812 million below its funding floor for the program, and that will trigger a "deficit tax" on employers.

The stimulus money would cover about two-thirds of the shortfall.

Oh, there’s a bill that comes due down the road. But it’s way down the road, it’s small, and we may be able to avoid it altogether if Texas can trim its benefits by cutting fraud and abuse.

This recommendation comes from Bill Allaway, president of the TTRA, a nonpartisan group that primarily represents businesses. One study by the Labor Department found about $153 million in annual excess payments in Texas, largely by people who claimed to be laid off from sham jobs.

That’s twice the annual costs of expanding the program, and then there’s the huge federal carrot.

"If we do this right, we can get federal money and make improvements that are needed," Allaway says.

But instead of figuring out a way to capitalize on the windfall, Perry is slamming Washington and warning of economic death for Texas. His public posturing smacks of politics, not economics, and ideology rather than pragmatism.

"The strings attached to these federal funds could very well strangle an economy that leads the nation in exports and Fortune 500 companies," Perry said.

Don’t believe it. The costs of the program just aren’t that great.

The Texas Workforce Commission says it would cost about $76 million a year to expand the system so it meets the new guidelines. That’s about 2.5 percent of Texas’ projected jobless benefits in the next year.

On a per employee basis, that comes to about $8 extra annually. That hardly sounds like a backbreaker, especially for a state that regularly leads the nation in business expansion. Companies flock to Texas for lots of reasons — low operating costs, central location, growing markets, attractive standard of living.

Low business taxes are part of the equation, but our low unemployment insurance rates aren’t seriously threatened by this increase, even if it’s needed. Only South Dakota has a smaller share of unemployed workers who get state benefits.

Even without the federal incentives and the insurance funding shortfall, the congressional proposals have merit for Texans. The primary change would add the latest work history into the benefits calculation, ending an outdated paperwork approach that had eliminated more low-income workers.

Another proposal to extend benefits to part-time employees is less revolutionary than it sounds. Texas already provides payments to laid-off part-timers (which is only just, considering that their employers paid into the system, too). Congress wants the state to allow laid-off part-timers to hunt for part-time work, but Texas benefits require that they search for full-time jobs.

This sounds like a tweak, not a wholesale change.

Same for the proposal for trailing spouses. If a husband is transferred and his wife has to give up her job to stay with him, she must wait six weeks to apply for unemployment benefits in Texas (unless he’s a military man). Congress wants the coverage to begin immediately.

No doubt more people would get unemployment checks because of these changes, but that’s the idea. The expansion is supposed to make the system more fair and uniform, so more deserving folks aren’t locked out.

On that score, the federal funds would help thousands who badly need a hand now. And because unemployment benefits are spent almost immediately on food, shelter and transportation, the money would be a direct stimulus for Texas, too.

Economist Ray Perryman testified in Austin last week that every $1 from these unemployment benefits would add $2.66 to the economy.

Perry also objects to the stimulus offer because he views it as a tactic for Washington to direct social policy in Texas. That’s the case, but it’s a hollow complaint.

Washington has been influencing state policies for decades. (Think seat belts and drinking restrictions for 18-year-olds). In the same vein, government in Austin plays the heavy on local issues, too. (Think education funding.)

This populist theme strikes a chord with many voters and creates a sharp contrast with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry’s rival in next year’s Republican primary. It may not stick, though.

When FDR pushed through unemployment insurance in the 1930s, states had the option of not participating. Eventually, every state joined in, because their residents were being taxed for the program, whether or not they received benefits.

It’s a parallel story today. All of us will pay for the federal stimulus, including the costs of expanding unemployment insurance. The only question is whether we’ll collect our share, too.