As a scientist who writes grants I find this to be off target. Yes there is a lot of nonsense you have to add to any grant about all the stuff you would never do. But the real problem, which they gloss over in the article, is that most grant giving organizations have a 5% success rate for applicants. Thus it's simply not worth anyone's time to do more than a modicum of effort for all the add-on things you say you will do. If there was more money, and there's plenty of money don't let people tell you there isn't, then success rates would rise to a more sustainable rate like 15-25%. Then it would be worth having an opinion about how the grants are written.