Historically, people did not expect a lot from their national governments. There were occasionally devastating events which outstripped the ability of individuals, families, and their personal connections to deal with them. Such events were usually responded to in limited fashion by local or regional governments. Because of transportation and communication issues, national governments were viewed as being too far removed from the situation to either care or to respond in a timely manner.

About a century ago, something changed. People started to absorb and believe socialistic political creeds such as marxism, socialism, or even fascism. (Are you thinking that fascism is not socialistic? Read the Wikipedia article.) They came to see the state as the savior of the nation and the giver of utopian, ideal society.

As this was beginning, the industrial revolution, railroads, telegraphs, and telephones were spreading around the world. Religious people were expecting humankind to outgrow racism, intolerance, immorality, poverty, and most of all, war. Non-religious people were expecting the state to bring all those things to pass–after a class struggle of some sort.

And then came the Russian revolution, with its widely-watched attempt to build a perfect society from scratch, avoiding the concentration of wealth and power which characterized Russia under the Czars, and which in fact, characterized most if not all nations based in Europe and the Americas. They achieved some remarkable economic things in the early years, at the cost of causing the deaths of millions of people in areas that resisted their new plan (particularly the Ukraine).

The Russian revolution was but one event. There were also two world wars and a global economic depression. During all of these things, people became more and more dependent upon their national governments for things they previously did for themselves or relied upon friends, family, neighbors, or the church to provide. People began to call out to their national leader for things they once called out to their God to provide.

Now, all of this would merely be a lecture about history, except that our nation is again facing a forced decision. For around the 49th time in fifty years, the national government is running a deficit. Like every year since the end of World War II, part of that deficit is being covered up using funds raised by Social Security taxes. Thanks to two three wars and the bank bailout, the size of the annual deficit is far larger in recent years than it was before.

We’re also facing the end of the time when Social Security taxes could be used to cover up some or all of the annual deficit. Within a few years, Social Security payments will be more than then-current Social Security tax collections, meaning that then-current taxpayers will pay extra taxes (or the government will borrow more money) to cover the repayment of the so-called trust fund set up for Social Security.

Because of the number of baby boomers that will be retiring, there could be 2 retirees for every 3 workers—all supported by then-current taxes and borrowing. At some point, those in the workforce are going to be angry enough to demand some changes. (By the way, the current practice of the lowest income brackets paying almost no tax at all will change when there is nothing more to be extracted from higher income people.)

Now, having government-funded retirement has been a real boon to the older generations. Being able to relax and enjoy one’s sunset years is a great thing, something that few people ever experienced before Social Security. But the government cannot (and eventually will not) provide for all of our needs, whether we are discussing health care, education, a “safety net”, or retirement.

In a recent speech, the President talked about the discussion and disagreement within our nation about the proper role of the government in Americans’ daily lives. Unfortunately, this is a case of rhetoric obscuring facts. Republicans claim they want smaller government, but they only want smaller government on the social benefit programs side. Republicans generally support an expansive and expanding military / security apparatus. Democrats generally support expansive and expanding social benefit programs, often with a reduced role for military / security. At some point, someone (besides Ron Paul) must start asking us what we want to do about the total size and scope of government operations.