One more sign of right-wing hypocrisy. And, while not impugning Mrs. Palin’s personal faith, this doesn’t seem like a WWJD action.

You mean as governor she actually has to make difficult decisions on what to fund and what not to fund? Maybe because she and the legislature are supposed to not spend too much of the taxpayer’s money?
What is your insinuation? That because she reduced funding she is hostile to pregnant teens? Maybe you know better what programs she should reduce to balance the budget, instead of her, who was elected by the people of Alaska and enjoys very high approval ratings…

Turmarion – has it occured to you that governors have to make budget decisions since they are trying to manage state government? Where’s the hypocrisy? It’s simply part of doing the governor’s job. Yes, I am sure you are an expert on what Jesus would do.

This is Alaska we are talking about. They had raised the tax on oil. They actually had budget surpluses, thanks to the windfall nature of the tax they passed.
Steve

Is the implication that having surpluses means you should increase funding for everything? Maybe Gov Palin believes the surplus should go back to taxpayers.

So, it is expected that Christians must support for endlessly growing and multiplying government programs, so long as they are stated for the “needy”?
Isn’t that rather presumptuous to assume that Christians have to believe in unlimited State and government charity, rather than a personal obligation?

This isn’t about government spending in general, it is about government spending when it comes to pregnant teenagers and celebrating the choice to keep the baby. Governer Palin has a pregnant teenager and her daughter is being applauded for choosing to have the baby (as if there would be a choice if Palin had her way, even if she had been raped). Is Palen trying to build a “pro-life” option only for those children whose parents can afford to support them?
This is about the priorities Palin has as a pro-life candidate. She refuses to support young women who are poor but are making the choice not to have an abortion. How can she say she wants girls to keep their children without acknowledging the incredible financial burden that puts most teenagers under? All I am looking for is some consistancy. At least Obama is offering more financial and community support for those women who choose to carry the pregnancy to term. In this sense he is the more compassionate pro-life candidate.

“So, it is expected that Christians must support for endlessly growing and multiplying government programs, so long as they are stated for the “needy”?”
Ah, I see…pro-life as long as it doesn’t cost you any money, right Watcher?

“This is about the priorities Palin has as a pro-life candidate. She refuses to support young women who are poor but are making the choice not to have an abortion.”
This is typical of today’s pro-life conservative in the GOP. Money has more value to them than the unborn children they say they want to save.
Sad, really, that they can’t realize that they are being played by the GOP with this issue.

Obama said he did not want to “punish his daughters” with a baby. It looks like Gov. Palin does want to punish them. That is why the Democratic Plank for prenatal and post-natal treatment is a winner while the anti-abortion plank of the Republicans is the loser.
Yes it is sad that the GOP says, “Do as I demand but I won’t help you.”

religious&liberal, steve, and ds0490 all put it very well.
No reasonable person denies that budgets, be they household, city, state, or federal require choices to be made. Somethings must be funded, some can’t be. That’s the nature of the beast. What we’re talking about is context and priorities.
We have to remember that Alaska gets lots of money from oil. It’s not like there is a huge budget crisis and there’s not enough to go around. Second, the evidence is that Paln is hardly a fiscal conservative. She originally supported the multi-million dollar “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a pork-barrel project if ever there was one. Also, the town of which she was mayor had zero debt at the beginning of her term, and over $20,000,000 in debt when she left.
No one says the government can or should solve everyone’s problems or that there should be “unlimited state charity”. However, the hypocricy comes in when the GOP consistently is willing to throw money to the wind on the Iraq war, on pork-barrel projects (while it ridicules Democrats who support such things), on corporate breaks, and on radical tax cuts, while brading those who think ordinary people in difficult straits should actually be helped as advocates of infinite government largesse. I mean, really!
In any case, don’t take my word for it: check out the record. Under Reagan and W. the most recent two-term Republicans, the federal deficit ballooned more than any time in prior history. Under Clinton, there were surpluses. Thus, before Republicans pontificate about those who want to spend more money, they need to start with themselves.

David Gibson,
Governor Palin did NOT cut funding for Covenant House Alaska (CHA). Rather, state funding for CHA has more than tripled during the two years Palin has been Governor. David Gibson, your post appears to be innaccurate and misleading.
In 2006, the year Palin was elected Governor, state funding for CHA was $1.2 million. The budget approved this spring by the Governor and AK legislature provides $3.9 million for CHA. At one point in the legislative process, a powerful committee chair summarily increased the funding for CHA from $1.2 to $5.0 million (a nice round figure), but in final negotiations with the Governor the final number was brought in line with other increases and requests and approved by both branches of government at $3.9 million.
You can get the 2006 financials on CHA, including their IRS form 990 report, at JustGive.org, which provides financial data on charities in order to help potential donors make intelligent choices and avoid fraudalent or poorly-administered charities. Link here to: http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=332976
To get a flavor for the political jockeying involved in approving this year’s Alaska state budget, including the increased funding for CHA, check this April 11 story in the Anchorage Daily News, which is headlined: “Legislators pile projects onto capital budget.” The writer summarizes the situation this way: “That’s how it went Thursday in the state Capitol — one request after another heard and granted, the redwood-sized budget growing like a weed.” You can link here to the story at http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/372507.html
So-called “progressives” are looking to bring down this woman. The country understands that.
But, David Gibson, in the name of journalistic decency, try to exercise some factual diligence in doing so.

TYPO ALERT: In my previous post, I wrote “Alaka House Covenant” when I meant to say “Covenant House Alaska”
Oh, well, I least I own up to my mistakes.
Let’s see how long it takes for the people who are responsible for this smear (“Palin cut funding for pregnant mothers in need”) to own up to their misrepresentation of the facts.