[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support.

But Neal how can she be in support of lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending when she ran her mayoral and governor positions by enticing more and more federal funding to be given to her city/state? She was a taker of federal earmarks. This is not in line with lower taxes/smaller government/lower spending rhetoric.

She was able to "lower" taxes in Alaska by increasing what the rest of us tax payers had to pay Alaska. Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita.

This is why I am not buying the "she is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending" line. Her own history betrays her hypocrisy.