Dave,

You have forced me to investigate some. I'm not an addict on this kind of stuff, so I'll leave that to those who are.

That being said, I could find little evidence that the Republican Party, per se, has done much of anything in recent times which advocates the overall promotion of well-being of the general populace. Some of your list is also claimed by the Republican Party, however, but all of that was some time ago.
I'm on the fence as to whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, or something of little or no importance. I know that that is a "set-up" statement, so before the opportunists jump (as many are eager to do, I'm sure......and some are probably peeing their pants in glee ), let me say this: I don't trust either Party. There are as many rich Democrats as there are rich Republicans in power positions, and that alone skews the truth to the point of un-recognizability. Knowing that either or both will willingly use misleading statements to promote themselves in politics, makes them all unbelievable. Just because something sounds good at first blush, does not necessarily make it a good thing. Even at the very ground level of consideration, doesn't one need to ask, "Can we afford it?" Considering our present mode of spending without regard to afford-ability, it seems to me to be a legitimate question. The answer is not nearly as simple as many would purport it to be, either, especially when part of the cost/benefit analysis involves questionable claims, and the effects of proposed changes.

Long story short, I guess I'm not as easily enamored as some, and am un-trusting of most forces in government when it/they reach beyond what I consider "helping". IMO, government is supposed to be there to assist, not control. I think that is consistent with my distaste for "law enforcement officers" over "peace officers".

edit: forgot to add this interesting recent article concerning recent EPA "strong-arming"....... contractors beware