Almost all conservatives (in addition to liberals) agree that the environment needs to be preserved. Liberals think the answer is more government. Conservatives think the answer is smarter (and smaller) gov't. If you've seen the EPA in action, you'd understand. Their primary focus when they audit a chemical company is paperwork, not what is going on in the plant. For them to audit what's going on in the plant, they would have to take the time to understand the process, and they don't have the time to do that. So they make sure your paperwork is filled out correctly. When the EPA takes an active role in banning chemicals, demanding BACT (best available control technology), they often get it wrong. Clinton's head of EPA (Carol Browner, who has no technical training and admitted she didn't know where salt goes when you put it in water) tried to ban the element chlorine, which would have set back modern medicine to the middle ages, among other things. Your chemical plant could be creating the next Superfund site, and the EPA wouldn't notice. The environmental legislation of the 1970's (RCRA, Clean Air Act, etc.) was the best thing that could have happened for the environment. That is what is driving the cleaning up of the nation's air and water. Companies (with few exceptions) comply willingly with those pieces of legislation, and it has helped the environment immensely. The EPA and additional regulations added since the 1970's haven't done a whole lot to improve the environment. And there are two aspects to protecting our financial stability. One is through regulation of banking and the stock markets, etc., and the other is through minimizing the federal debt. The same arguments that apply to the environment apply to financial regulation--federal regulators are inherently lazy and do not take the time to understand the process and the players that are involved. The Securities and Exchange Commission had all the information it needed to prosecute Enron for accounting fraud, but it chose not to look at it that closely. A high school teacher figured it out in an hour. That's embarrassing, but it happens all the time. As far as minimizing national debt, well, liberals are absolutely the worst people to trust on this issue. Democrat leaders have decided since 2008 that the U.S. gov't is responsible for driving the U.S. economy, which is disastrous thinking. The gov't should support the economy (education, infrastructure, trade agreements & tariffs, etc.), but never try to drive it. The gov't should try to regulate aspects of the economy without trying to control it. You don't want an economy that is dependent on federal spending, and you don't want the kind of debt accumulation that fiscal liberals GWB and BHO have been responsible for. It's not sustainable.