The resignations at the Environmental Protection Agency The left are leaving; this is a good thing.

From The Wall Street Journal:

EPA Resignation Facts

The rest of the story behind those loud civil-servant protests.

By The Editorial Board | August 7, 2017 6:57 p.m. ET

The media and federal unions are making a cause celebre out of federal scientists who have resigned and then denounced Trump Administration policies on the way out. We’re all for shrinking the government workforce, but the political melodrama could use a few leavening facts.

The latest splash is from Elizabeth Southerland, until recently the director of science and technology in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water. Ms. Southerland ended a 30-year EPA career last week with an internal memo decrying Donald Trump’s “draconian” budget cuts, and his “industry deregulation.” She said her “civic duty” required that she warn that “our children and grandchildren” face “increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.”

This follows the much-publicized April departure of Michael Cox, who quit the EPA in Washington state after 25 years, complaining in a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt about “indefensible budget cuts” and efforts to “dismantle EPA and its staff as quickly as possible.”

Both EPA employees are of retirement age, and they are right to bow out if they can’t in good faith work for Mr. Pruitt. Their letters nonetheless reveal an entrenched and liberal federal bureaucracy. Though career civil servants who are supposed to serve political appointees of any party, they have clearly become progressive ideological partisans.

So, their resignations in protest are really just retirements, punctuated with a parting shot at the duly-elected President and Senate-confirmed Administrator.

Their exits also explain why so much of the EPA workforce is misrepresenting or missing the point of Mr. Pruitt’s policy changes. Ms. Southerland raps the Administrator’s call to rebalance power between the feds and states, as she claims the EPA “has always followed a cooperative federalism approach.”

Really? During the combined presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal air-quality implementation plans on states. Barack Obama’s EPA imposed 56.

It seems that the left love it when federal supremacy imposes itself on the states, yet somehow, they seem to disagree when federal supremacy tries to impose itself on the states when it comes to enforcing immigration laws.

The Obama EPA also stripped states of their statutory development authority, whether with its pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s Pebble Mine, or its Waters of the United States rule that gave the feds de facto sway over tens of millions of acres of private land. EPA employees embraced these new powers, but they violate the Constitution and hurt the environment.

There’s more at the link, and I’ve already quoted more than I’d like. The article continues to note that while President Trump has proposed a 30% budget cut for the EPA, the Congress is unlikely to cut the appropriation by anywhere close to that amount. That would be a disappointment, and if Congress does appropriate that much more than the President’s request, he should require his Administrator to simply not spend that much money; sequester the funds instead.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the President of teh United States, and he gets to set policy. The left are trying their utmost to undermine his policies, and we should not allow that to happen.