If you were properly educated, you'd realize that it is the job of the legislature to levy taxes - not the Supreme Court. Holmes would have ruled on the constitutional validity of taxation, you knucklehead. That's where his quote comes from. BTW, you haven't a clue what judicial restraint actually means.
Again, not having the slightest idea of who I am and what I've done for a living for over 40 years, you step into the deep doo-doo. Keep digging, skippy ...
No surprise that you don't actually understand FDR. Once again, you took accounting at whatever silly school you attended and skipped history. FDR spent the country out of the great depression. A flat earther like you can't comprehend what that is. When banks and lending institutions fail, it's up to the government to inject money into the economy to prop it until until the banks can recover. Herbert Hoover followed your dimwitted philosophy (liquidate, liquidate, liquidate) and sent American into a death spiral. BTW, Herbert Hoover was a president, FYI. FDR cleaned up his disastrous presidency.
So ... let's visit the true legacy of FDR from a financial perspective ... despite the disastrous events of WW1 and the stock market crash in the late 1920's, the national debt of the US at the end of 1932 (Hoover's last year) was only $20 billion. Yes, billion, with a B - NOT trillion. Roughly just over half the size of your Commonwealth's current $30B debt. After FDR left office (by death) at the start of his fourth term ("No Kings", right?), that debt had ballooned to over $250 billion. That's a 1,200% increase, and every liberal politician since (ironically barring JFK) has basically adopted the mantra, "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (Clintons' hero Saul Alinsky, 1971). I'll leave it at that, saving us a long, dark trip into the depths of FDR's alliances with socialists and communists.
Just take a look are the history of Massachusetts Boston innovation and economic growth and that of New Hampshire. Massachusetts Boston has been a hub of world innovation in education, health care, and technology heavily subsidized by Federal funds.
Tweaked a few bits of your post, as about 75% of the geography of the Commonwealth has been largely left out of Boston's rise from its post-WW2 slumber, which saw Greater Boston considerably behind metro areas like Detroit (!) and Buffalo (!!), and even Montreal QC throughout the late 1940's, the 1950's, and most of the 1960's (and in Montreal's case, most of the 1970's too). Demographics also suggest it is most likely inevitable that Boston's continued slide into increasingly radical socialist politics (Governor Healy & Mayor Wu) will not end well and will accelerate the drain of capital and out-migration of high earners to tax-friendly states like FL, TX, TN and (yes) NH. What goes up, usually will come down at some point (see Detroit, Buffalo and Philly).
Boston's midwestern cousins Minneapolis/St. Paul are a little further down the road to ruin, but it's not hard to foresee that with a few foreseeable twists of fortune, Boston may not be that far behind MSP. At least MA's "moon bats" have avoided rioting (so far). Throw in quality of life, and I'm happy to be where we are, thank you.
