I agree with you on that one. I would much rather the State (or the people themselves for that matter) keep its money than send it to Washington to be redistributed but that doesn't make Palin a liar or a hypocrite.
Well, she was still a liar and a hypocrite.
First, liar. She didn't "tell Congress" anything about that earmark. The "earmark" portion (the requirement that the money be used for the bridges) had already been rescinded long before she was ever elected Governor. By the time she took office (and, looking at the dates, by the time she was seriously
running for office) they were already no-strings-attached funds, which she gladly accepted and used.
Unless maybe she told them "thanks but no thanks" as mayor of Wasilla. Could be, I guess. But I doubt that Congress heard her, if that's the case.
Hypocrite is a bit more tenuous. You've got the "saying one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco" (or whichever podunk city she used for the former) line. When, by what accounts I've read, she was supportive of building the bridge in Ketchikan, including the idea of using federal funds to do it. And, of course, I doubt she used the term "bridge to nowhere" when campaigning for Governor in Ketchikan. But now that her speech is being seen in...well,
San Francisco, suddenly that's what she's calling it.
That seems at least a wee bit hypocritical to me.
Not that this makes her evil. It's politics, these things are normal and even expected. But please, let's not pretend she's somehow above it.