the hypocrisy of supposed small-government "tea partiers"

I have no problems with conservatives. However, I don't believe the vast majority of Tea Partiers have much connection to lower-case "c" conservatism. Eisenhower, a Republican, warned the country about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, not about the threat posed to America by brown people, in his final speech as President in 1961. However, Tea Partiers have shown themselves not at all concerned with the expansion of the American empire-itself the elephant in the room regarding the ballooning debt which these so-called patriots claim to be concerned. Tea Partiers have a positive opinion of George W. Bush-a leader who had very little concern for keeping government's footprint small.

Regarding government regulation-we haven't heard much Tea Party criticism of the absence of regulation which allowed for the mining accident in West Virginia last month in which 29 people died. Indeed, the CEO of that company, completely not coincidentally, was recently at a rally in which he, Sean Hannity, Ted Nugent, and others railed at Obama, cap-and-trade legislation, supposed green "extremists", and regulation. Indeed, his company sponsored the rally. But apparently, hoping that workers don't die in industrial accidents is not a Tea Party value.

It just points out again, the absurdity of claiming that Tea Partiers are conservatives. Conservatives who truly believe in limited government would have an issue with the bill in Arizona which privileges state government over federal government on the issue of immigration. The fact that the Association of Arizona Police Chiefs opposes the bill on the grounds that immigration is better dealt with at the national than at the state level does not restrict Tea Partiers from offering empty praise to police.

As one pundit put it, Tea Partiers have an issue with small government until it interferes with "warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding."

Robert Reich on the similarities between Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, and Massey Energy

What do Massey Energy, Goldman Sachs, and Halliburton have in common? They're all the beneficiaries of a insufficient regulation. Halliburton, in spite of being responsible for multiple breaches of laws-from the deaths of at least 16 troops, from electrocution owing to KBR's faulty wiring, from the detention of Jamie Jones after Jones had been raped, to the inability to account for $1.4 billion in Iraq to which Halliburton was entrusted, to the very process by which Halliburton was awarded multiple contracts which had not been exposed to public bidding.

Goldman Sachs has benefitted from a close relationship with the federal government (quite apart from the political party in the ascendance in Washington). They are bailed out, in spite of their bundling almost indecipherable, and typically worthless financial products. Their sway, and the tendency of the SEC to watch porn rather than regulate Goldman Sachs, facilitated the ascendance of Goldman Sachs and the other large banks largely responsible for sending the world's economy into the toilet.

Massey Energy has a lengthy record of breaking laws and not being punished. Its CEO, Don Blankenship spent over $3 million to elect a member of the West Virginia Supreme Court who subsequently voted to repeal a fine imposed on Massey Energy over a conviction reached in West Virginia ruling that Massey had engaged in fraud in order to put a competitor, Harman Energy, out of business. His company was fined $1.5 million over the deaths of two miners who the regulatory agency ruled had died because of safety violations in a Massey mine in January 2006. Massey Energy, via its' CEO claims to believe that regulation would comprise us needing to learn Chinese and he also is quite alright with elementary school aged children breathing coal-laced air.

All these companies have been the beneficiaries of a Wild West of commerce over the last 30 years, in which business has largely been untethered from rules that would significantly motivate them not to do damage to the communities in which they do business. Reich nails this dynamic much better than I can.