The NSF seems to be an awfully popular target. I think the nature of some of the studies have bad optics despite worthwhile science.

The Golden Fleece Award

The National Science Foundation (NSF) won the first Golden Fleece Award, for spending $84,000 on a study on love.[1][4] Proxmire reasoned that:[16]
I object to this not only because no one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I’m sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn’t get an answer that anyone would believe. I’m also against it because I don’t want the answer.
I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don’t want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.

The NSF for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila as opposed to gin[24]
National Institute for Mental Health for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, what went on in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy[1]

The Coburn Report-Republican 2011

The report fingered several studies that exemplify “waste and duplication”; those cited in the press release included: “$80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships;” “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names;” “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” “$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends;” and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist.”[1] Ineffective management examples, cited in report, included “Hundreds of millions of dollars lost to ineffective contracting”; “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts;” “At least $3 million in excessive travel funds”; “A lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “Inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.[1]
The report has put forward several recommendations, such as clarifying and establishing guidelines on what is meant by “transformative science”, measuring success and ensuring accountability, improving grant accountability, reducing duplication, consolidation of the Directorate for Education & Human Resources and most controversially, elimination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economics Directorate (which receives a total of $200-300 million per year).[1] The press release accompanying the report noted that “The social sciences should not be the focus of our premier basic scientific research agency”.[1] Coburn questioned whether “these social sciences represent obvious national priorities that deserve a cut of the same pie” as the natural sciences.[4]