Your first source is quite flawed IMO. For one, they focus on the idea that the impetus behind the Tea Party movement was some kind of schizophrenic notion of c

Your first source is quite flawed IMO. For one, they focus on the idea that the impetus behind the Tea Party movement was some kind of schizophrenic notion of citizens wanting both low taxes but also many high-quality public services. The Tea Party in the Boston harbor wasn't simply about taxation, it was about representation or lack there of. The modern Tea Party that sprang up under Obama was quite similar in that regard, i.e. voters felt they were being squeezed while their government provided them an inadequate voice in how they should be governed, and after the massive shift in state and local governments in 2010 after the ACA was passed, the Tea Party essentially sputtered out because the goal of representation had been achieved in a lot of cases. Secondly, it lacks focus on cost efficiency or assessing cost effectiveness in how the tax payer's money is being spent. I don't know the situation in Chicago very well, but my inclination is to discount any source as irrelevant if it doesn't address how efficiently tax dollars get converted into desired services. Finally it seems more concerned with diverting the reader's attention towards national politics, particularly Trump's election and why voters voted for him.