Bradford Plumer argues that it’s a good thing because it is necessary to pass liberal legislation. Various conservatives have reacted by saying that in their minds, Plumer has strengthened the case against pork (since they don’t like liberal legislation). I’m not sure that the link is all that strong. What Plumer seems to me to have shown is that some pork is needed to get almost any major legislation through Congress. Conservative bills would probably need it just as much as liberal bills.

A rule against pork would probably make it harder to pass legislation in general. It may be that this effect would be, on balance, good for anti-statist conservatives, in the same way that other features of our system that slow down policy change (such as the veto, the bicameral legislature, and the filibuster) are. But that seems to me to be different from the argument Plumer is making.