Wealth redistriubtion increases povery

Just came across this, from Katherine Mangu-Ward in 2007:

In theory, redistribution of wealth is supposed to benefit the least fortunate. In practice, it doesn’t necessarily work out that way. In a new study, Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute and Paul J. Gessig of the Rio Grande Foundation crunch census data for the 1990s and find that the poor did much better in states with low taxes and low spending than in states with higher taxes. Big-spending, high-taxing states saw increases in poverty rates, despite a national economic boom. On average, big spenders in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming saw a 7.6 percent increase in poverty rates, while cheapskates in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas saw their poverty rates drop nearly 10 percent.

As evidence continues to mount that large government programs, supported by high tax rates, is a recipe for failure, we continue to put our trust in people like Obama, who, after having spent trillions in just a few months, intends to spend even trillions more.

I'm beginning to doubt that Americans will recognize this logic gap in my lifetime.