Aug 22nd 2011, 2:12:54
One could also wonder why the most regulated states also have the most super-rich... perhaps because government regulation always favors those who can pay for it and punishing those who cannot?
But that whole argument misses the point of the Tea Party. The movement is saying that overall the government is too big, too wasteful, cost too much and is grossly inefficient in doing much of what it does. Big government favors the rich and powerful (who can afford to buy access to lawmakers, lawyers to find loopholes and litigate, etc...) but a smaller with more local responsibility is easier for more people to keep track of. And fewer, simpler regulations are less expensive to administer, easier and less expensive to comply with and are more fairly applied (ie: fewer pages to build loopholes for those with lawyers and $$).