Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., recently took an unusual approach to opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline: arguing that it’s an earmark and thus not in line with current House rules. The fact-checking site PoliFact asked UMBC political science professor Roy T. Meyers to weigh in on the accuracy of that statement.
Meyers told PolitiFact, “Earmarks have been criticized, often justifiably, for not being subject to sufficient scrutiny on their policy merits.” He continued, “Unlike most research grants that are subject to demanding peer reviews, or many contracts that must undergo extensive agency review and competitive bidding, earmarks are awarded only after cursory reviews, typically by committee staff. Congress substitutes its judgment on a particular case, cutting agencies and other experts out of the loop.”
However, in this case Meyers was “astonished to see how [Grayson] selectively and misleadingly edited the definition of earmark, then compounded the fault by drawing a bizarre inference regarding the bill’s effective approval of a permit. This bill is about administrative regulation, or more accurately, the lack of it.”
Meyers argued, “Grayson would be smarter to argue that the bill violates the spirit, not the letter, of the earmark moratorium and the philosophy that supposedly backs it.”
Tags: CAHSS, PoliticalScience
