It's true. She took on big government and was far more successful in her tenior as governor than Mitt Romney was. She dealt with massive billion dollar budgets that dwarfed Mitt Romney's budgets of Massachusetts. She was far more accomplished in getting things done pertaining to multi billion dollar corporations compared to Romney. One thing Palin did was take on members of her own party and had several go to jail for corruption. Palin was more fiscally conservative than Romney. Palin didn't put a burden on the Alaskan citizen unlike Romney who did. Let's have a look at the numbers: Governor Palin's record: Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Alaska Governor Sarah Palin In June 2007, Palin signed a record $6.6 billion operating budget into law. At the same time, she used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the capital budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the capital budget to $1.6 billion. In 2008, Palin vetoed $286 million, cutting or reducing funding for 350 projects from the FY09 capital budget. When it comes to Fiscal Conservatism, Governor Palin reduced spending in her budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by more than one billion dollars from the previous governors Fiscal Year 2007 budget, a 9.5% real reduction in spending. Her FY2010 budget was $10.57 billion compared to Governor Murkowskis FY2007 budget of nearly $11.7 billion. At the same time, she fulfilled her campaign promise to forward fund education, allowing districts greater flexibility and predictability in their planning. A general rule of thumb for both liberal and conservative administrations is to claim that they may reasonably increase spending every year at a rate of 2% to 3% because of inflation and that should not count against them as increased spending. Even if we use the low end of inflation at 2%, Governor Palins budget could have been (without calling it a spending increase): $12,413,374,459.20. Of course, the budget is not $12.4 billion; it is actually $10.57 billion. In other words, she cut spending. Total reduction in spending between 2007 and 2010: a whopping 9.5% or $1,127,400,000 When Governor Palin set out to cut Alaskas dependence on government funds, she was serious. Governor Palin reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80% during her administration, requesting only earmarks that would benefit the country as a whole. FFY2007- Gov. Murkowski 63 projects at $349,497,000 FFY08- Gov. Palin 52 projects at $256,037,000 FFY09- Gov. Palin 31 projects at $195,094,900 FFY10- Gov. Palin: 8 projects @ $69,100,000 As you can clearly see, there was a noticeable drop in federal requests year after year during Governor Palins administration. Now let's look at Romneys numbers: Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year. Unexpected revenue of $1.01.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.21.5 billion. Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses. He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.Romney did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases. The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years. The cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent. The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but remained below the national average. Now I wont even get into the universal healthcare that he imposed on the Massachusetts citizens. The overall picture is that Palin was a more successful governor when it came to fiscal responsibility. She knew how to handle business's at a corporate level who were cheating the state. Romney is successful but he isn't fiscally responsible compared to Palin. The ending result is Governor Palin is more suited to be president than Governor Romney. Her record proves it and her record on tackling corruption or crony capitalism solidifies it.