"Agriculture programs in 2009, discretionary were $6.85 billion. They are $7.22 billion. That is a 6-percent increase. The mandatory spending was $18 billion. It is now $22 billion. That is a 21-percent increase. Plus they got $1 billion in the stimulus. So if you add that to the $30 billion, we actually have $31 billion compared to $24 billion this year. Think about what kind of increase that is. Title II conservation programs was $969 million in 2009. We gave $340 million, which hasn't been spent yet; it will be spent this year. Yet we increase it another 4.5 percent to $1.015 billion...This is exactly the reason the American people are disgusted with Congress. This is a bill that is out of its bounds in terms of its spending. It has not recognized what is in the stimulus that has not been spent. So what we are doing is we are actually going to increase the debt through this bill that is going to be spent," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) stated on the Senate floor in August.

Coburn continued, "We are in a crisis. We will have close to a $2 trillion deficit this year. Here we have $4.9 million that the administration says isn't needed. They want to get rid of it. They are right. What do we do? Every time we come to approach a program, we decide we can't eliminate it. Every family in America today is eliminating a lot of programs for themselves."

Notice some key words used by Coburn when referring to the President Obama's Administration requests to "get rid of" $4.9 million, and, "They are right... we decide, we can't eliminate it."

This clearly demonstrates that, first, the administration is trying to eliminate wasteful spending, and, secondly, that Republicans cannot seem to get on the same page.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas became the top Republican on the panel that handles spending for the Agriculture Department last year. This year, Brownback inserted a $12.5 million earmark in the agriculture bill. That is up from $2.4 million he granted in the same bill three years ago. Samples of Brownback's reasoning for pushing through the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 are um, interesting at the very least.

Read on.

"I think it is also important that we fund into the next generation of genetics and technology in this area. I was interested in one of my travels across Kansas. Last year, we had a time where some of my corn farmers could not plant for a couple days, and it was not because it was wet. It was because the satellite went down. Their global positioning system on their corn planter would not work, so they could not plant their corn because the satellite was down. I am going: Well, that is an interesting excuse. I haven't heard that one before. But it wasn't an excuse. It was a fact of life. To plant these crops and do the best job -- and they apply just the right amount of fertilizer to that soil and that crop in that specific location will take, it takes a global positioning satellite that has had the data read into it and fed back. That is how high tech the industry is."

This statement coming from Brownback smacks in the face of his verbal stance for "getting back to the basics..."

"We also have some developments in the environmental field that I think are interesting. We have people in Kansas and other places around the country who are working on things such as green concrete.

"You ask, What would that be?

"It is concrete that has soy oil brought into it to help it be an environmentally sound, renewable type of process. They already are making the foam matting in the seat in your car out of soybeans. So when you sit in a new Mustang in particular, I know that car for sure, the foam rubber is made out of soybeans. I guess if you get caught in a Colorado blizzard and don't have anything to eat for a week or two, you can eat the seat."

Yes, Brownback actually said that.

"The Food and Drug Administration is also in this bill, and that is part of the increase. The development and the increasing need for different types of drugs are addressed in this bill as well.

"We are looking at other types of fuels. One that is interesting for some people is on algae production into a diesel type of fuel. We are doing something on wind because wind is what generally blows across the Plains in your State, Mr. President, my State, and a number of others and harvesting that in such a way that we can get it to other markets, the electric markets, and add a cost-competitive rate so it is not one that drives it up."

Keep in mind that when Brownback took office he espoused that Republicans should not just reform big government, they should eliminate it. He immediately proposed abolishing the departments of education, energy, and commerce. In fact, he has repeatedly voted down any attempts to lower greenhouse emissions.

Attempting to gain support for his earmark, Brownback used crafty language he believed might appeal to those Senators who support green technology.

"All of this does take a lot of effort. I want to acknowledge that some colleagues on my side are saying: I am not satisfied with this bill; I don't like some of the items in this bill. I say to them: I agree. There are provisions in this bill I don't like. But, it is part of us getting a process to move an Agriculture appropriations bill through, something we have not been able to get through on the floor for over three years in a stand-alone type of bill on a very important industry that is globally competitive, that has been a good one for us in this recessionary time period we are in."

If it were not imperative to maintain proper quoting protocol, that statement would receive serious editing.

"I note we have a lot of problems with this bill, but I also say I think we have a lot we are doing right with it and looking forward into the future of what we can do to be very supportive.

"Norman Borlaug, an agronomist from Texas A&M, is known as the father of the green revolution that brought a lot of the new technology to feed the world. This has been over a career. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the green revolution.

"I mention him because he is a key person in looking to the future of how the world is fed and fed at a good level. He notes it is important for us to do things in an environmentally sensitive and environmentally sound way but that we also need to fund high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties. We need to be able to use plant genetics that are in some places around the world.

"Some are saying: We don't like your alterations on plant genetics. We need to be able to do this. To feed a hungry world, we are going to have to use agricultural pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizer, and that gets into crosscurrents.

"They say: I want all the agricultural production, but I don't want these inputs brought into it. We don't have a model for that to work yet."

Gee, maybe his view has something to do with Koch Industries based in Wichita, Kansas who were responsible for dumping 91 metric tons of benzene, a cancer-causing agent (used in crude oil and pesticides), into lakes and streams.

Lucky for them that when George W. Bush took office in 2000, pending charges on a 97 count indictment, prison time, and fines of $352 million were virtually dropped because the Koch brothers were able to contribute $800,000 to ensure Bush was elected. Former Attorney General Ashcroft dropped nearly all charges. Koch Industries plead guilty to falsifying documents and paid a settlement of a mere $20 million. No one served jail time.

Bush was not alone in receiving handsome amounts of money from Koch. Brownback has also claimed hundreds of thousands in contributions from this corruption-laden conglomerate, who consequently rewards pro-lifers and is responsible for beginning American's for Prosperity, the sister company who helps fund the Tea Party activities.

Conclusion on Brownback's plea for that bill resulted in 37 voting in favor, and 60 opposing; Brownback voted yes.

In a separate request for rural dairy farmers made by Bernard Sanders (I-VT), who said,

"We are united from every section of the country to make the point that when we talk about the deep recession we are facing, this is a recession that is impacting rural America very severely, and we cannot forget about rural America.

"Right now, at this moment, dairy farmers across the country are suffering from the lowest milk prices in four decades. In the last year, the price farmers received for milk has plummeted 41 percent. I ask for support on the amendment."

Brownback took on a different tone when addressing Sanders request.

"I understand the difficulty the dairy industry is in. We have dairy industry in Kansas, and it is an important business. Certainly, prices are difficult and they are having trouble.

"However, the Sanders amendment would provide the Farm Service Agency with an additional $350 million. Unfortunately, even if we could agree that additional funding was necessary, the amendment was put in such a way that it cannot work; it is not drafted appropriately. There is no mechanism to move the funding from the FSA salaries and expenses account to the Dairy Product Price Support Program.

"For these reasons, regrettably, I cannot support the amendment..."

Sanders case was met with overwhelming support, passing on a vote of 60 - 37.

Brownback voted no because the request was "above baseline spending," he said.

Yet amazingly, Brownback ended up with an additional $3.4 million per year in conference, above the baseline funding level, for research addressing emerging animal disease threats at the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, IA.

While Federal funding for lawmakers' pet projects have declined this year, 11 members of Congress who rose to prevailing positions on the subcommittees that write the spending bills came out glowing. Seniority on the congressional panels that write annual federal spending bills has a way of rendering money for their personal earmarks.

Beginning in 2008 as part of a rule's package of changes prompted by a series of corruption scandals, Congress requires the 12 annual spending bills list all earmarks and include names of lawmakers who sponsor them. Since that rule, lawmakers have curtailed earmark spending by roughly a third; translating to $14.8 billion in 2008, to $10.2 billion this year, according to the nonpartisan budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The top GOP slot has changed hands on 16 of the 24 House and Senate subcommittees that handle spending bills in the past three years. That change has yielded $46.3 million more in earmarks this year over what 2008 spawned.

According to Sen. George Voinovich, (R-Ohio), earmarks are good for the local economy. He prefers to call them the economic "yeast that raises the dough."

Since Voinovich became the top Republican on last year's subcommittee overseeing homeland security funding, his earmarks increased from a sum of zero in 2008 to a whopping $23.3 million this year.

Voinovich wrote in an e-mail that he chooses earmarks that "create jobs, strengthen our infrastructure, improve quality of life, and have a lasting impact on Ohio for years to come."

Even more notable is that in the past three years, only one appropriations subcommittee, the Senate panel that handles the legislative branch funding got a new Democratic chairperson. New Chairman Ben Nelson of Nebraska inserted the bill's only earmark this year, a $200,000 grant to an Omaha museum, his first in the bill since reporting began in 2008.

Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who was replaced by Brownback as the top Republican on the agriculture panel, saw his agriculture earmarks cut by more than half, from $18.5 million in 2008 to $9 million this year, the analysis shows. However, Bennett moved up to become the top Republican on the subcommittee handling energy and water spending. His earmarks in that bill almost tripled, from $17.4 million in 2008 to $51.3 million this year.

"The fact that earmark dollars usually increase with a lawmaker's seniority shows the system is fundamentally flawed," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"This is not about merit. This is not about objective funding decisions," Ellis said. "They're making funding decisions based on where you sit in the chamber versus what you need on the ground."

The same day, Aug. 4, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) offered information pertaining to President Obama's proposal to Amendment 1912.

Keep in mind, Amendment 1912 failed, and Brownback was one of the Senators that voted No.

"Mr. President, this vote will be on amendment No. 1912. The amendment eliminates, as recommended by the President of the United States, the USDA Watershed, and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watershed Program.

"This program is the perfect example of how reckless earmarking can devastate a well-intentioned government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, this administration has proposed to terminate this account, four previous Presidents, because 'Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.'

"According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watershed Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to evaluate and prioritize projects.

"A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"The onslaught of earmarks over the years has most certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects, totaling $1.2 billion.

"As was originally intended, the Small Watershed Program may be a worthwhile program, but by inundating it with so-called 'congressionally designated projects,' the program is challenged to function properly to the point where four previous Presidents have recommended its termination. Nevertheless, the Appropriations Committee hasn't given up on plundering it just yet. The bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for various unauthorized projects.

"I urge my colleagues to support the President's recommendation. Again, I will quote from the President's recommendation, the President of the United States."

McCain continued by reading the following:

"The administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. The Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.

"It goes on and on, every analysis is that it has a lower economic return than any other program. Four Presidents have sought to eliminate it. We will probably lose this vote. If there is ever a graphic example that once a program is established, and once you fund it, it acquires a constituency and a powerful special interest and that funding continues. We are proving, and we will continue to prove as we go through the appropriations bills, that there is no program that once it exists, is going to be eliminated by this body. The appropriators continue to defy not only the President of the United States but logic and good sense as we amass deficits of monumental proportions which are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures."

After reading the Presidents words, McCain said,

"We cannot even stop a program the President wants terminated, that has no value that the Office of Management and Budget and any objective observer will say deserves termination. It is only $24.3 million, but the appropriators will join and jawbone others, and we will lose this vote, the same way we lost a vote yesterday that, again, had been recommended for termination by the President of the United States.

"I didn't come up with this. It wasn't my idea to terminate it, although I certainly do think we should. It was the idea of the President of the United States. It is also every objective observer's idea. We will prove that not only will we not eliminate that program, but we send the message to the country that this program -- even though the President wants it terminated, even though it has a clear record of total inefficiency -- we will continue to maintain.

"Sooner or later, there will be more tea parties and more protests, and the American people are going to rise up and say: Stop it."

There it is folks, one interesting depiction of how Brownback proposes to cut Government waste and yet later manages to walk away with an additional $12.5 million. Wonder why his office spokesperson refuses to comment.