Americans Continue to Oppose Government Intervention
The tea party fiercely disapproved of the government’s involvement in the free market, whether it was the bank bailouts or the subsidization of the “green” industry. The tea party even opposes industries that do not receive national attention from acquiring subsidies. One such example is the NAT GAS Act, which would provide additional subsidies to the natural gas industry, which is advancing without the government’s taxpayer-funded handouts.
(Heritage Action has detailed the opposition to the NAT GAS Act here.)
And those Congressmen who continue to support government intervention are seeing the electoral effects of such decisions, as evidenced by Tulsa World in the recent Oklahoma primary between incumbent Tom Sullivan and challenger Jim Bridenstine:
“On only one issue, energy policy, did Sullivan and Bridenstine substantially disagree. Sullivan touted his bill to promote natural gas vehicle fuels, while Bridenstine supports an alternative proposal.
“‘Let’s get cars, trucks and buses running on natural gas,’ Sullivan said. ‘We have an abundance of it here in the United States. It’s cheap and abundant and … it also addresses a national security issue by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.’
“Bridenstine calls Sullivan’s NatGas Act a ‘big-government’ boondoggle because it creates a short-term subsidy to convert vehicles to natural gas.
“‘We ought not let Washington, D.C., control free markets with tax subsidies,’ he said.”
The primary upset shows that tea party sentiment within the American people remains strong. The rest of Congress can learn a lesson from this primary: that good policy makes good politics and that continuing the Washington status quo is a losing issue.