Nullification Now? Nullification No!

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

With the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare, in what at best might be described as an attempt by John Roberts to “save” the “reputation” of the Supreme Court, many are again calling on states to use nullification to stop implementation of Obamacare. Nullification is the legal theory which claims individual states have a right to nullify or invalidate any federal laws which an individual state deems unconstitutional. On the surface, it might sound like a good idea. However, we must dig a little deeper to understand why “nullification now” is not the answer in our current Constitutional crisis.

People often don’t like hearing reality contrary to their opinion (and more than a few seem to enjoy playing “shoot the messenger”), but nullification is quite simply a dead horse. United States jurisprudence has a long track record of not upholding nullification. From 1798 until the start of the Civil War in 1861, several states either threatened or attempted to nullify different federal laws. None of these nullification attempts were upheld by the Supreme Court. On top of this, the Civil War, as a victory for a powerful and centralized federal government, effectively silenced further nullification attempts.

Nullification remained a dead issue until the mid-twentieth century. It once again reared its head in the 1950s as southern states fought against forced integration of public schools by the federal government. This time, nullification went to the Supreme Court as a specific issue and was explicitly struck down in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). In this case, the Court explicitly, once-and-for-all, clearly declared that individual states may not refuse to enforce federal law. As an aside, we also find the Court now claiming that individual states likewise may not enforce federal law which the federal government refuses to enforce itself: Arizona v. United States (2012).

Such rulings stem from the fact the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to use it to apply nearly the entire Bill of Rights to the states. In the process, the Court has largely eradicated individual state sovereignty. Keep in mind, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, it was understood as something imposing limits on the federal government, not on individual state governments. Had those voting on it understood it applying to state governments, it would have never garnered the votes necessary for ratification.

However, even on its own, the nullification theory lacks a valid Constitutional basis; hence the reason the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts at nullification by individual states. No less a figure than James Madison held that nullification was unconstitutional. Do nullification proponents seriously believe that James Madison lacked proper understanding of the Constitution?

Further, even if nullification were a Constitutionally valid position, since we’ve allowed the creation at all levels of the job title “career politician” (people for whom reelection trumps doing the right thing), do we seriously believe there are enough state legislators willing to actually pass nullification? Not only would they fear their state being cut off from the teat of federal government appropriations, but would also fear the backlash from the hordes of people now dependent on Big Government handouts (so-called “entitlements”).

On top of this, again even assuming nullification were Constitutionally valid, those calling for nullification are under the impression the federal government would simply allow the sates to “go quietly.” Such a position is nothing short of delusional. Let’s not forget a little thing called the “Civil War.” Consider what Lincoln was able to do with a significantly smaller and significantly less powerful federal government. Now consider the vastly larger and vastly more powerful federal government we’ve allowed to come into existence today. It is not a bureaucracy that can simply be ignored; nor indeed a bureaucracy that will allow itself to simply be ignored.

Before I get attacked with the dreaded label of “neocon” (a phrase so causally tossed out by Tom Woods/Ron Paul libertarians whenever they believe they’re losing an argument – as if calling their opponent a “neocon” triumphantly and automatically settles every argument in their favor; odd how they so often insist on employing the exact same sort of name-calling tactics as TeamObama against anyone who happens to disagree with their position – but that’s an issue in itself for another time), I’m not saying I like the situation as it is; instead I am simply describing reality as it is. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and anyone else are welcome to disagree all they want, but simply disagreeing with reality does not alter its existence. And since it is reality with which we must deal, and since the nullification road has already been shown to be a dead end, we need to get smart and engage in tactics which actually stand a chance of working.

Given the state of Constitutional Law, it’s too late to attack the issue of overturning Obamacare primarily through legal “tricks” in state legislatures; instead, the primary path to attack this issue is through a wholesale change of the federal-level legislative and executive branches, backed up with strong state legislative and executive branches. The only way to make this change happen is through changing the “hearts and minds” of individual citizens.

We need to once and for all wake people up to their responsibility as citizens to be informed about not only issues and candidates, but about the structure and function of our representative Republic. People must learn to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of our founders in order to understand what ought to be, coupled with reading Constitutional case law in order to understand what is; thereby being able to devise appropriate strategies to move what is back to what ought to be. We need to ensure the roughly 30% of conservative-minded people who are not currently registered to vote, not only get registered, but also exercise their responsibility to participate in the election process. And the tallest order in today’s environment: we need to get people who’ve been indoctrinated in the “entitlement” mentality to understand that a Big Government nanny state “providing” for them from cradle to grave is not freedom, but bondage.

In short, the way we win is by causing a fundamental shift in world view back to traditional American values and principles.

Mea Culpa

Mea Culpa!

I must apologize to the leftist  radical who commented on my post yesterday chiding me on what he felt was an incorrect use of the term “Marxist socialist” in describing Obama. First, from what I can determine from your blog, despite the many spelling and grammatical errors, you appear to live in the United Kingdom, so I’m not quite sure why you are so concerned about a blog having to do with the United States of America and its citizens – of which you are apparently not one. Second, if you actually read my post and follow the links, you will very clearly note I did not say Obama is a Marxist socialist, I said some of those around him are Marxist socialists. Since these people have publically described themselves as such, I took them at their word. Perhaps they are the ones making incorrect use of the term “Marxist socialist.”

Now, while I’ll put my knowledge of Marxist socialism and Marx-Engels’ writings up against whatever leftist radicals claim they say, I’ll grant I might not have been one hundred percent accurate in my use of the term “Marxist socialist” since the focus of my post was on the Constitution of the United States and not a detailed dissertation on the various branches and forms of leftist radicalism. However, when I come across a steaming, smelly pile of excrement, I don’t need to kneel down with fine tooth comb and magnifying glass to determine its exact origin in order to use my common sense to know not to step in it.

Therefore, for warning my fellow United States citizens to avoid stepping in a pile of excrement without first properly identifying the animal from which it came, I profusely apologize.

We Must Hang Together

Greek Riots, 2008 (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

It starts today.  It starts here.  It starts now.  The time to remain asleep and sitting on the sidelines has long since passed.  The radical left, including many of those very close to Obama, have become quite open and vocal about their intent to collapse the United States in order to “fundamentally transform” it into their Marxist-socialist vision.  There is simply no longer any excuse to pretend not to know and understand their agenda – they have made it abundantly clear through their own words and actions.  At this point, a decision to do nothing is a decision to empower the radicals in their attacks on the basic fabric of the American system and the Constitution.

The radical left is now openly calling for violence in the streets and agitating for people to rise up in class warfare.  Do you understand why?  Historically, open warfare has always been the last step before Marxist take-over of nations – look at the history of communist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba.  They’re openly calling for violence because they believe they’ve brought us to the “end game.”  They’ve been maneuvering for a long time while most of you were asleep (and remain asleep).  They are openly saying they’re very close to their goal.  They truly believe all that’s left is for the proletariat to rise up in class warfare to take down the bourgeoisie

They’re so close to victory, they’re now even outright openly dismissing the Constitution.  Why do you think it is we’re now hearing a growing chorus from the left telling us the Constitution is old, outdated and too obscure to mean anything today?

Do you even understand the grave risk posed to our society today?  Or are you ignorant enough to believe that simply because America has existed all your lifetime, it’ll simply go on existing unchanged with no effort on your part to defend it?

The majority of American people who do not want a “fundamental transformation” of the United States into a Marxist-socialist state need to rise up and band together now!  Don’t be like the people of Cuba who refused to pay attention to what was going on around them, not realizing until it was too late that Castro was turning their nation into a Marxist-socialist state.

Their weapons might be guns and bombs, but our weapons are even more powerful: knowledge and truth.  If we’re educated about the truth and spread the truth of American liberty and freedom, their Marxist lies wither and die.  If we’d simply band together in knowledge and truth, we could easily and quickly defeat the radical left.  However, it requires all of us standing together – not most of you remaining asleep or on the sidelines hoping that someone else will do the “heavy lifting” for you.  YOU, as an individual, must get involved and get involved now!

Here are some action steps to get you started:

Action Step 1:  Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  Those doctrines describe exactly how our government is supposed to operate.  Once you know how your government is supposed to operate, you can better recognize when your elected representatives are doing things they’re not allowed.

Action Step 2:  Read The 5,000 Year Leap.  This book gives you a “quick and easy” overview of the founding of the United States and the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Action Step 3:  This is the critical step – share what you learn with others!

These three simple action steps will get you headed in the right direction.  The key is to get off your butt and do something to defend your way of life and the Constitution before it’s too late!

As Ben Franklin wisely told us:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

The Tax System Explained with Beer

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

[This post originally appeared on my old blog in November 2008.  It seems worth sharing with a new audience.]

Too many people have been suckered into accepting a ridiculous “class warfare” mentality. The prevailing thought is: “Sock it to those damn rich! That will make us feel better about ourselves! After all, it’s only fair.”

Unfortunately, this misses a few important points. First, the “evil” rich are the ones out there taking risks, creating businesses, creating jobs, and creating wealth. Second, “class warfare” is a Marxist ideal that is completely opposed to the American dream. In America, you have the unique opportunity to make anything of yourself if you’re just willing to put in the hard work. Anyone with a good idea is completely free to turn it into a multi-million dollar business. Ever heard of Walt Disney, Ray Kroc, Harland Sanders (you might know him as Col. Sanders), or Sam Walton?

“Come on, Steve,” you say, “that takes too much hard work. I’d rather sit around and receive my government handout. Those rich make too much profit. They can give some to me. After all, it’s only fair.”

That idea replaces “trickle down economics” with “trickle up poverty.” In a capitalist economy [Note: I should have more properly said a “small business friendly” economy since there’s little difference between “corporate capitalism” and socialism], as people make money, they tend to open more businesses and create more jobs, which creates more wealth for everyone. Oh, and as profits go up, tax income increases as well not only due to the fact that there’s more profit, but there are also more workers paying their taxes (but we don’t want to talk about that).

Today, we want to replace capitalism with Marxist ideals (which by the way worked out just so great in the Soviet Union) that punishes the wealthy and rewards slackers. So instead of everyone becoming better off, we all become worse off – “trickle up poverty.” Fewer businesses are opened, fewer jobs are created, and less wealth is generated. You can’t “spread the wealth” when there is no more wealth left to spread.

Here’s the other dirty little secret: 40% of Americans pay NO income taxes! In fact, most of them get a check from the government for the earned income credit. Meanwhile, the top 5% of Americans are paying nearly 60% of the income taxes. How much more do they need to be squeezed? How much is enough, how much is “fair?”

Is it really “fair” for you to work your butt off so slackers can sit around and do nothing?

Why do we want to keep punishing the “rich?” [Instead of punishing the rich, doesn’t it make more sense to create an environment which allows more people to become rich through their own ingenuity and hard work?]

The story below has been falsely attributed to a Georgia college professor. Even though that’s not who really wrote it, it remains a very clear explanation of our tax system and why the “sock it to the rich” mentality is flawed.

The Tax System – Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly applying the same percentages that each man paid to the new $80.00 amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Level or Fair?

Level or Fair? (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Do you want a level playing field or a fair playing field?  That is the question before you.  They are not the same thing.  You must choose one, since the choice of one rules out the other.  Let’s consider the options more closely.  Perhaps that will help with your decision.  What is a level playing field?  What is a fair playing field?  And what’s the difference anyway?

A level playing field means everyone is equally matched.  No one is allowed to be smarter, richer, more talented or better looking than anyone else.  If someone starts to gain an advantage, rules are in place to check such actions and keep things “level.”  Similarly, if someone discovers a new way to gain advantage, the rules are changed or more rules are added to, again, keep things “level.”  In a level playing field, if someone chooses to sit in the sidelines, that person is “awarded” points taken from those playing the hardest.  A level playing field is all about equality of outcome regardless of ability.

On the other hand, a fair playing field means everyone is allowed equal opportunity.  Everyone has equal access to the field.  On a fair playing field, the rules ensure equality of access, not equality of outcome.   Everyone on the field has equal opportunity to pick up the ball and run with it.  In a fair playing field, people are encouraged to use their intelligence, ability and determination to score as much as they want.  However, no one is forced to score or forced to play; but those who choose to sit on the sidelines are not “rewarded” by being given points taken from those playing.

We’re often told the playing field must be kept level or it’s not “fair.”  However, as we’ve just seen, “level” is about outcome; “fair” is about access and opportunity.  If your access and opportunity are denied or restricted, such a system could hardly said to be “fair.”

Would we consider it “fair” if rules were in place forcing sports teams to always be equally matched (a “level” playing field)?  Would we think it “fair” if rules forced a player out of a game if he started scoring “too many” points?  Would we think it “fair” if the rules took points away from a high-scoring player and gave them to the other team simply because he was scoring “too much?”  Would we think it “fair” if winning teams were prohibited from participating in playoffs?  Would we think it “fair” if outstanding individual sports talent was somehow “punished” or discouraged?

I think almost everyone would see immediately such rules are not fair and would see clearly the difference between “level” and “fair.”  Yet, when it comes to government, we are repeatedly told that enforcement of a “level” playing field is fair – and far too many people go along with this nonsensical definition.

Since at least the early 1900s, progressives from all political parties, in the name of “fairness,” have worked to make things “level” (which, if examined in detail, for them means the powerful remain powerful and everyone else remains, well, not powerful).  We can see this all around us, with mountains of laws and regulations which now affect nearly every aspect of every person’s daily life.  Can you even name one thing you do which is not in some way affected by at least one law or regulation?  This “leveling” of the playing field is always done, they say, in the name of “fairness.”  Is it really fair?

Is it really fair, for example, for a person to be granted or denied college access based not on ability, but skin color?  Is it really fair for an entrepreneur to face a nearly un-navigable sea of bureaucracy in order to start a business?  Is it really fair for someone to work hard only to have the fruits of his labor forcibly taken from him and given to those who choose to be idle?  Is it really fair for government to “punish” productivity and productive people?  The list could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: “level” is not “fair” and “fair” is not “level.”

So, what do you think?  Which is it: level or fair?  It’s time to chose.

As an aside, my sports team analogy is already happening in youth sports: http://sedalia.fox4kc.com/content/undefeated-youth-football-team-banned-playoffs.  What kind of lessons are we teaching our younger generations?

Government Handouts are Compassionate? No!

Somehow our nation lost its sense of thrift.  Not that long ago, Americans fundamentally understand thrift and frugality as desirable virtues.  We’ve become so far removed from these ideas we no longer even understand what it means to be thrifty and frugal.  Thrift doesn’t mean being a miser or being greedy.  It means making the wisest use of what we have (time, money, possessions, health, natural resources, everything) for good and productive purposes.  Similarly, being frugal means conserving those same things instead of using them up in a “consumer” mentality.  The opposite vices of the virtues of thrift and frugality are idleness and waste.

The greatest American champion of thrift and frugality, Benjamin Franklin, told us, “Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt.”  Similarly, he teaches us, “Be industrious and frugal, and you will be rich.”  Instead these virtues have been replaced by the vice of “entitlement.”  Too many people think they’re “owed” something from everyone else.  We’ve been brainwashed into believing Big Government handouts are “compassionate.”  Are they really?  Let’s think this one through, shall we?

Person A works hard, spends wisely and saves for a rainy day.  Person B doesn’t.  Person B sees Person A and cries, “It’s not fair!”  Big (Compassionate) Government hears Person B (and smells votes) and says to Person B, “You’re right, it’s not fair!  We’ll help you!”  Big (Compassionate) Government goes to Person A and takes from him the rightfully earned fruits of his labor.  Big (Compassionate) Government goes back to Person B, gives him Person A’s money and says, “Remember, we’re from the government and we’re here to help – vote early and vote often!”

What’s wrong with this?  After all, you big meanie, “it’s for the kids”™.  What, do you just hate poor people and kids and old people and puppies and want them all to die?

Yep, that’s it Alan Grayson (by the way, so sorry about the unemployment thing, but with a net worth of over $31 million, I’m sure you’ll somehow make it through – filled for unemployment already, haven’t you, you sly fox?), you caught me!  I simply hate everyone and want them all to die.  Or, just maybe, I see through your Big (Compassionate) Government programs and understand what they’re really doing to all the people you claim to be helping.

Let’s consider for a moment exactly what happens when we continue to take from Person A in order to give to Person B.  Productive Person A is going to get rather tired of working hard in order to support unproductive Person B sitting around on his butt with his hand out demanding more from Big (Compassionate) Government – a demand to which Big (Compassionate) Government (smelling votes) continually caves into.  So what’s the incentive for Person A to keep working hard, spending wisely and saving for a rainy day when all he has to do is stick his hand out and demand his “entitlement” too?  Are you ready for the answer?  THERE IS NO INCENTIVE for Person A to keep working hard, spending wisely and saving for a rainy day.  So Big (Compassionate) Government isn’t exactly being all too compassionate to Person A – but Person A is “rich,” so who cares, right?

Now, let’s suppose Person A is a small business owner.  As Big (Compassionate) Government takes from Person A the rightfully earned fruits of his labor, Person A now lacks capital to expand his business – an expansion which would have offered Person B something called a “job.”  But why do something as distasteful and unseemly as work when Big (Compassionate) Government will provide?  As Big (Compassionate) Government continues to answer Person B’s demand for more by taking more from Person A, Person A has to shrink his business, putting Person C out of work.  Now Person C joins Person B in demanding their “entitlements” from Big (Compassionate) Government.  So what must Big (Compassionate) Government do in response?  Print more money?  No, that’s just what the Treasury does in order to give money to the Federal Reserve (a private banking system not owned by the government) in order to buy up our national debt and keep the whole “entitlement” charade running – at least temporarily.  Instead, Big (Compassionate) Government takes more and more of the rightfully earned fruits of Person A’s labor.  Finally, Person A finds it impossible to continue in business and closes the doors, sending Persons D through Z, along with Person A to the Big (Compassionate) Government handout line.

What happens when we run out of Person As from whom to take the rightfully earned fruits of their labor in order to give it to others?  Why do so few people bother to think about the end consequence of “socking it to the rich?”  Once we’re out of Person As, boys and girls, the party is over.  There are no more wrongfully taken fruits of the labors of others to handout in order to meet the demands for “entitlements” from the unproductive people.  We become what Greece is today.  Socialism is fun until you run out of other people’s money to spend.

Once we become Greece, we see clearly that Big (Compassionate) Government was never compassionate.  The only thing it cared about (or more exactly, the politicians) was power.  Through its lust for power, it created dependent people – on purpose!  Why?  Because the more people dependent on Big (NOT Compassionate) Government, the more power it can amass for itself.

Once people are dependent on the government doles, they don’t want to go anything to upset the apple cart and lose their “entitlements.”  So these people end up giving up more and more of their liberty and freedom in exchange for more Big (Compassionate) Government “goodies” – the money for which comes from Big (Compassionate) Government stealing a productive person’s rightfully earned fruits of labor and giving them to an unproductive person.  But, as I just mentioned, you can only plunder the purses of productive people for so long until there’s nothing left to steal.

In the end, let’s ponder this question: is it more compassionate for Big (Compassionate) Government to hand out fish taken from others or is it more compassionate for Person A to teach Person B how to catch his own fish?  And if Person B refuses the fishing lessons, is it really still Person A’s responsibility to take care of Person B or does not Person B maintain primary responsibility over his own destiny?  Is it better to empower someone by making him capable of supporting himself or is it better to disenfranchise someone by making him dependent on some other body for his support?  How did we lose all common sense that we no longer answer these questions as our founders answered them?

“I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Theft is Fine as Long as It’s the Government Stealing. Oh, Really?

I’m constantly amazed with the number of people who’d be outraged if a thief came into their home, held them at gun point while taking their legitimately earned property and told them, “Don’t worry, I’m giving this to those less fortunate who deserve it;” but they see absolutely no problem with the government forcibly taking the rightfully earned property of productive people in order to “redistribute” it to unproductive people in the name of “fairness.”

A forcibly taking from B in order to give to C is not the definition of “fairness,” at least in my book; instead it’s the definition of stealing.  I remember hearing about 10 something or others and I vaguely recall they mention something about “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property” — probably just a bunch of old fashioned mumbo jumbo anyway.

If something is wrong for a private person to do to you or force you to do, it’s wrong for the government to do likewise, as government (in the form of a representative republic) is nothing more than an agent of the people.  In a representative republic, the government is not some sort of special “ruling class” with more power than the people.  Instead, the government IS the people — so when you say “The government needs to do something,” you are really saying you need to do something.

In a representative republic, government is supposed to be a slave to the people, not the other way around.  This is why you can’t live in freedom while at the same time demanding government “solve” all your problems.  Individual freedom and Big Government are mutually exclusive.  Either you have Big Government with more power than the people resulting in a curtailment of individual liberty and freedom or you have individual liberty and freedom which requires limited government.

The choices are limited government with individual liberty and freedom on one hand or Big Government and tyranny on the other.  There simply is no other solution.  Our founders completely understood this concept, yet most people today, strung out on the opium of Big Government handouts (government jobs, government pensions, social security, Medicare, welfare, tax “credits,” etc.), don’t understand it and don’t even care to try to understand it.  As long as the “goodies” keep coming, they happily give up more and more liberty and freedom.  Unfortunately, the “money bag” is only so deep — you can only take so much from productive people until they no longer have anything left and become unproductive people too.

Take a look at Greece to see what happens when the money runs out and the party ends.  We are on the exact same course and with the entitlement mentalities bread into people today, God help us when the money finally runs out here.

The government does not create jobs or wealth — productive people create jobs and wealth.  So the more productive people are “punished” for being productive, the less jobs and wealth are created.  We see this in action today with policy after policy of the Obama administration and current congress.  You cannot reward unproductiveness while punishing productiveness and expect the economy to improve.