Were I President Trump, I would have fired Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt a few months ago. But not as long ago as some might have wished.
Because aside from Pruitt’s fastidious attraction to the appearance of cronyism — and yes, that’s a big aside that needed to see him fired — Pruitt’s actions as administrator did positively roll back the administrative state. As a conservative concerned about regulatory overreach, I regarded those actions as positive for the nation. I believe many conservatives in the agricultural or energy sectors of the economy would share that perspective with even greater priority.
Speak to executives or mid-level managers in these industries and they will speak of how the Obama administration and environmental activists have used overbroad interpretations of EPA-overseen legislation such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act to harass them and dramatically increase their costs. While some liberals like to present the Obama-era EPA’s overreach as involving targeted action against evil oil companies drowning dolphins in oceans of detritus, they are lying. The real measure of the administrative state’s overreach is its dramatic cost on American workers and jobs. Indeed, driven by the donations of billionaires like Tom Steyer and negatively affecting the poorest the most, the administrative state is cronyism of a kind Pruitt might otherwise be proud.
Of course, many Americans don’t know about Pruitt’s work taking on these vested interests. They don’t know so because much of the give and take of the administrative state takes place behind the scenes. It takes place in the form of boring and long-winded rules such as that Pruitt exercised last week when he ordered a reduction to the 2019 renewable fuel standard. That idiotic standard rule drives up food prices, does little to mitigate air pollution (Google search for ethanol energy efficiency), but feeds the ethanol industry’s cronyism. At the margin, Pruitt’s action last week will help lower gas bills and serve American drivers.
Do not misunderstand me. Pruitt’s use of his office to reward family members and advance his own personal interests was utterly inexcusable. Indeed, it was a betrayal of the trust the American people are asked to vest in our politicians. But when we measure Pruitt’s legacy, we must recognize the good things he did and why for some conservatives trying to stay in business, his departure will be lamented.
