Tea Party name is a misnomer
The Tea Party got it wrong when it picked its name. They thought the original Boston Tea Party was about being anti-government. The Neo-Tea Partiers' anti-regulation policies protecting corporations are exactly opposite to what took place in 1773.
What went on back then was the model for the corporate takeover of government we are experiencing today. Mad, bad King George III was a bought ruler, a shareholder in the giant East India Company. At their urging, and to his own profit, King George authorized the Tea Act of 1773. Over 2000 colonists rallied in Boston. A group led by Samuel Adams dressed as Indians and went aboard all the ships at Griffin's wharf and threw 342 chests of tea into the harbor.
Today's reaction against corporate greed is coming from the 99% movement. Tea monopolies are not the target, but the "public be damned" policies of petroleum, gas, coal giants, and especially banks and hedge funds are. They get favorable legislation by bribing congressmen with obscene campaign contributions. The extremely wealthy 1% are protected by the Neo-Tea Partiers and their captive Republican party.
We citizens who are offended by corporate "personhood", by campaign finance practices, and by the preposterous disparity in personal wealth don't have an obvious "tea chest" solution. The Occupiers have made us all more aware, more outraged. But it will require long, even tedious, political action to correct our country's inequities. Demonstrations help, but it takes reformation of our laws to accomplish the goals.
For a detailed exposition of all this a good sourcebook is Thom Hartmann's "UnEqual Protection: the Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights."
It's written in layspeak and really covers the territory.
Richard C. Bartlett, Cotuit