As is always the case, perspective is usually determined by where you sit. There may be no clearer example of this than looking at the situation that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin now finds herself in, specifically on the issue of the infamous “bridge to nowhere.”

For those who don't remember, Parade Magazine did a piece in November 2005 about a federally earmarked project to build a bridge to Alaska's Gravina Island that would have served 50 residents at a cost of $315 million. The resulting uproar got Congress to start listing such earmarks so that voters could see who was getting what and good government groups could check them against campaign contributions. While a great deal of “earmark” reform has occurred, the need for full disclosure and greater transparency is still high.

For most, the bridge to nowhere had been all but forgotten with the exception of political junkies and columnists, until Palin got the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket. The headlines have not been kind to her on this subject. Critics charge that first she was for it before being against it. While in the end she may have been against it, her initial support was because, as someone who was representing Alaskans specifically, she wanted to make sure those funds were secured for her state and they were.

No matter how she and the GOP may spin it, it does come out that she is doing what any state leader should be doing - looking for new sources of funds. While it is right to think that all officeholders look at the big picture, when it comes to such financial priorities, constituents, and more importantly, challengers will hold them accountable on whether they “bring home the bacon” - whether it's good public policy or not.

Palin has also been criticized for hiring a lobbying firm to handle matters of interest to her town with Washington. One shouldn't be shocked - especially since, in a national capital that shows deep signs of political paralysis, only a state and/or forward thinking locality that doesn't want to get its “fair share” doesn't hire someone to look out for their interests.

Yes, the retort is that is why a state has senators and members of the House. If it were so easy.

Often these representatives are more beholden to their national parties and chamber leaders than their constituents. In the end a fee of $36,000 annually for a lobbyist netted Wasilla $27 million, not a bad return.

Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com