Rick Perry, along with many other Republican candidates, have been quite vocal in their disdain for the Environmental Protection Agency. They see the regulatory agency as an overbearing federal nuisance that interferes with business practices and jobs with little actual benefit.

In September, Rick Perry complained that “the Obama administration continues to put up road blocks for our nation’s job creators by imposing burdensome regulations based on assumptions, not facts, that will result in job losses and increased energy costs with no definite environmental benefit.”

Perry, in particular, has gone on to claim that his actions as Texas governor and his work with businesses are the main contributing factors to the reduction in Texas air pollution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the EPA says otherwise. They point to legislation such as the Clean Air Act as the force behind the improvements seen in Texas air quality (as well as the general increase in the air quality of states).

Perhaps if Texas stood apart in its ability to improve air quality, there would be a better basis for Perry’s claims. Yet, the fact that the nation as a whole has experienced a decrease in toxic emissions points to a cause other than Rick Perry’s ability as a governor.

Unfortunately, Perry’s fight with the EPA isn’t new. Texas has a “flexible permit” system that allows facilities to use emission measurements for the entire plant when applying for permits, which lets businesses get by with putting controls on only some of their polluting smokestacks.

Because Perry believes that the flexible permit system is a better alternative than EPA regulations, he would prefer that the EPA be stripped of federal funds in its entirety, and he is not alone in the matter. Many other GOP candidates have expressed an interest in taking the EPA off the list of government expenditures.

But this stance doesn’t reflect the opinions of nearly half of GOP constituents. In a CNN survey of voters, 53 percent of those identified as Republicans were in favor of continuing to provide funding for the EPA by the government. Within all political ideologies, 71 percent favored a continuation of government funding to the EPA.

Once again, it seems that politicians are catering to a certain sub-group of their constituents, rather than listening to their voters. For many, it is not simply a straightforward issue of what the government should spend money on, but about maintaining and protecting our environment. From what we can gather, it looks like the EPA is doing their job in protecting the health of Americans and the United States.

The 2012 presidential race has turned every possible issue into an economic one. While this is a primary concern of the nation, perhaps we should remember that not every issue can simply be boiled down to monetary worth.