Pork: Good for constituents or bad for the country?

The shocking death of longtime Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska in a plane crash on Monday raised an interesting question for me. Stevens was often derided as the "king of pork." He was the architect of the infamous "Bridge to Nowehere." But is pork -- extra money funneled to states to help create jobs and build infrastructure -- really as bad as it's cracked up to be?
Opponents of pork point to Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" as an example of government waste and a misuse of taxpayer funds. They point out correctly that the projects completed today will be paid for by future generations.
But is pork really all that bad? So-called pork helps pay for building roads and bridges and other infrastructure. In a sparsely populated state like Alaska, it may be the only way that such improvements get made. "Pork" has also been used to pay for new scientific research programs and technology advances. Does anyone really have a problem with that?And what about the fact that "pork" funds help create new jobs? Isn't it true that voters, at least in part, elect representatives to "bring home the bacon" for their states?
Stevens has been described as an "unapologetic advocate for his state" during his more than 40 years in the Senate. If he, in fact, represented his state well and helped create new jobs and build new infrastructure, is it really fair to deride him as "the king of pork?" And even if the title is appropriate, is it really such a bad thing? Something to make you think.