Okay, I admit I don't lose sleep over the problem at night. :) Nor will I be likely to actually die if you all continue to use these techniques (well, maybe just a little...). But since you've actually invited a rant from me...
Yes, everything has it's place. There are times when it may not be possible for the dialogue to carry all the weight, or it might be innapropriate to insert an action beat. And there's more leeway, let's say, with kids and YA writing. Less experienced readers might gain some benefit from further authorial guidance.
But for adult readers, beyond the rare and specific instance, I think there's craft problems with the technique. Yes, some big-selling authors do it. But they're not big-selling because they do it, but in spite of the fact that they do it. If you do lots of other things well, you can be forgiven that certain elements lack in subtlety. The better you are at some things the more leeway you have with others. And, of course, some readers will never notice one way or the other. But some will. So, to me, it comes down to the difference between "good enough" writing and "good" writing.
So, yes, there are specific instances where it will be effective. Use with discretion. But in general I think it's often a little awkward and some people will notice. Not all. Maybe not even most. It depends on how much you care about that other percent of readers, whatever it might be. Do you want it as smooth and effective as possible? Or good enough for the general reader? Some writers will care greatly about that difference, while others will care very little.
The first problem with the technique is that it's a bit of a band-aid technique. You write a bit of dialogue. You select a dialogue tag to clarify emotional tone. That's not terrible. It works, in a sense. It's functional. But what you're doing is missing an opportunity to interrogate that dialogue. Does it work? Could it work better? It's a lazy solution. Instead of pushing that dialogue, the writing, to be the best it can be, you put on a band-aid to cover up the problem. As a reader you don't want the narrator to explain what's happening. You want to hear and see it. You want to be inside the story, not hearing about it. You want to be inside the dream vision, and such dialogue tags are authorial intrusions. Very, very minor ones, yes, but they can break that dream vision, even if only momentarily. They're little stutters in the flow of the narrative.
In a sense, it's a technique with a particular side effect of distancing the reader. It's less immediate, less visceral. It's a little aside by the author: "oh, by the way, he's angry..."
But what if you already know he's angry? For my last point I'm gonna use Jaime's funny line as my guinea pig (sorry Jaime! Figured you wouldn't mind since it was just a jokey line)
"I like my reading to have some emotion, damn it!" she yelled, thumping her fist on the table.
This made me laugh, but if we look at it from the point of view of actual dialogue you'll see something interesting. That is, the dialogue tag isn't really doing anything. We have a thumping fist, an obvious marker for emotion. And then we have the line itself. It's sharp, strong. Decisive hook at the end with the invective. Pop! And then we have the punctuation, in this case an exclamation mark, which indicates someone is loudly exclaiming something (in other words, shouting or yelling, etc.). So what is the dialogue tag doing? Nothing that hasn't already been accomplished more effectively. What we have here is not weak dialogue that needs to be propped up by a dialogue tag... but rather a perfectly fine bit of dialogue that doesn't need anything at all. It's already there.
So often, I think, dialogue tags are redundant. And not only does that redundancy lead to a more cluttered and inelegant feeling, it also talks down to the reader. Unintentionally, most of the time, but it's there, a sort of subtext: the author doesn't trust the reader's ability to read properly. And this isn't a particularly good thing to subliminally suggest to your reader. Hey, I wrote a loud bit of dialogue, with loud punctuation and a loud action... but you're too much of a dunce to get it, probably, so I'll just tell you outright. It's loud!"
It's like going to a museum. The paintings are hanging on the wall. You see them, you have some sort of emotional/intellectual response to them... but what if someone is standing there and saying "Oh, this is very modernist and you should be feeling a little claustrophobic right now, a little on edge, a little out of sorts, and yet still aesthetically pleased and a little in awe..."? You wouldn't be appreciative, most likely. You can look at the painting and make an assessment yourself. It's right there.
Same goes for the writing. It's right there. It shouldn't need to be shaped after the fact by a dialogue tag, just as you shouldn't need someone to tell you that there's some interesting use of colour in a painting. You should be able to see that for yourself. In writing, the more you see for yourself the more you're drawn into the story, the more you become a part of the story. The more seamless the writing the better. And dialogue tags are usually seams. Small and tight seams, often, but seams nonetheless.
So that's my take on the craft of dialogue tags. You did ask! I know, I know, if only you could take back that suggestion the world would be a sunnier, happier and more adverbial place...