During the depths of the Great Depression, with the official unemployment rate at 25 percent, imagine the boldness of proposing a new tax on both employers and employees to fund a compulsory federal old-age insurance program. Yet this was what the Roosevelt administration did in the 1930s in proposing a tax on payroll (one-half to be paid by the employer and one-half to be paid by the employee). Representative Charles Eaton, a Republican from New Jersey, warned of the precedent such a tax would set -- a model for "sovietizing" the distinctive American values of self-reliance and personal initiative. in his opinion, these were embodied best in American industry (cr 1935: 5583). There were Democrats who agreed. Representative John J. O'Connor (D-New York), envisioned a future including old-age insurance as one where we would have the "spectacle of sons and daughters giving up supporting their parents and wanting the Federal Government to support them. We of the great State of New York take care of our deserving aged people, but we do not deceive and delude them" (cr 1935: 5461).

Despite the early controversy, today this tax is one of those least questioned by the American public. Its widespread acceptance is remarkable, especially considering the magnitude of the tax for the average worker. Similarly, there was concern initially over the "Big Brother" potential of Social Security numbers, yet these numbers are widely used today as identification numbers without the least public notice.

It is clear that attitudes have come a long way. Although Social . . .