IN THE aftermath of the Senate election in Massachusetts, the focus of attention is inevitably on what it means for Barack Obama. The impact on the Democratic president of the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans will, no doubt, be significant (see article). Yet the result could be remembered as a message more profound than the disparate mutterings of a grumpy electorate that has lost faith in its leader—as a growl of hostility to the rising power of the state.

America’s most vibrant political force at the moment is the anti-tax tea-party movement. Even in leftish Massachusetts people are worried that Mr Obama’s spending splurge, notably his still-unpassed health-care bill, will send the deficit soaring. In Britain, where elections are usually spending competitions, the contest this year will be fought about where to cut. Even in regions as historically statist as Scandinavia and southern Europe debates are beginning to emerge about the size and effectiveness of government.

There are good reasons, as well as bad ones, why the state is growing; but the trend must be reversed. Doing so will prove exceedingly hard—not least because the bigger and more powerful the state gets, the more it tends to grow. But electorates, as in Massachusetts, eventually revolt; and such expressions of voters’ fury are likely to shape politics in the years to come.

The Economist will return to these areas in coming months. All raise different issues; and different countries may need to deal with them in different ways. But one large general point links them: a great battle about the state is brewing. And, as in another influential revolution, the first shot may have been heard in Massachusetts.

As I've said before, it's meaningless as long as the anti-tax movement remains a bunch of NIMBY complainers that insist that only things that don't affect them be cut. Without massive cuts to Social Security or Medicare, the government can not possibly eliminate its debt, and we both know that those cuts will never, ever happen.

If you did a poll asking "should the government implement steep cuts to Medicare and/or Social Security in order to balance the budget" I would be very surprised if 20% of the respondents said yes. In my experience, the people vocally complaining about government spending are just complaining without offering any real solutions, none of them want to cut those two programs and none of them are willing to accept that eliminating the debt is impossible without doing so. You have liberals which tend to be younger who like UHC and social programs, they will vehemently oppose any cuts. Older conservatives might understand on some level that the programs need to be cut, but they're not about to **** themselves out of a guaranteed paycheck, especially after paying into these programs for decades.

The beauty of Social Security is that sufficient support for shutting it down will never exist. There is and always will be an overwhelming majority of voters (actual voters, not theoretical people over the age of 18 voters) who are already too deeply invested in the system.

They can cut my Social Security right now if they refund the money I've paid into it up until now. They don't even have to pay me interest...although if they want to I wouldn't say no...

Honestly, they can keep the money they've jacked me for. Just let me pull out now so I can invest the money on my own.

Honestly, they can keep the money they've jacked me for. Just let me pull out now so I can invest the money on my own.

FDR designed it that way. Of course, a lot of those invested in the system are starting to believe they really aren't because there will be nothing left for them anyhow.

It's going to be funded by inflating our way out of it, which is still preferable to abolishing it for most of the voter base, as will spread the misery amongst everyone in the country, rather than concentrating it amongst the recipients only.

Except monetizing debt doesn't do that. It will not be spread evenly. It will be paid for in greatest by those who rely on SS to supplement their retirement.

It's going to be funded by inflating our way out of it, which is still preferable to abolishing it for most of the voter base, as will spread the misery amongst everyone in the country, rather than concentrating it amongst the recipients only.

Maybe, but I've been paying in for roughly 4 decades.

But do you really believe you'll see it? I don't I consider it gone, just extra income tax.