Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—a massive package of federal social programs and reforms intended to stimulate the American economy out of the Great Depression—had a lot of admirers. Among them was Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.

“I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path,” Goebbels said. “We are dealing with the greatest social problems ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back, and this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem” (emphasis mine; you can see these remarks at about the 43-minute mark in this video.) Out of that man’s mouth, those are ominous words. His boss led Germany through its own strong-government path out of that global economic turmoil—a path that put Germans back to work but also led to World War ii.

In times of trial, people often cry for help from those more powerful than themselves. The pious look to God. The worldly look to government.

The trouble is, putting faith in something other than God always has nasty kickbacks.

Though many people credit the New Deal with rescuing America from the Depression, it ushered in an unprecedented expansion of government from which America has never recovered. Roosevelt’s Washington grabbed the reins of the economy and the money supply, it took control over business regulation and agricultural production, it empowered trade unions, and it encouraged public dependence on government through welfare and retirement fund programs. All of these initiatives spoke to clear needs, addressing thorny problems and providing immediate relief to people under duress. But they also had far-reaching costs we are still paying for.

Most of these measures were meant to be temporary, living only as long as circumstances demanded. But that isn’t what has happened. Hulking remains of the New Deal still fill the American landscape. Among them: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (fdic), and the Federal Housing Administration (fha). Oh—and Social Security, which now soaks up more than one of every three dollars the government spends. That New Deal program is the centerpiece of the entitlement costs that put the current national debt not at $10 trillion, as is generally reported, but well over $50 trillion.

It is the nature of government to expand. Government benefits are a highly addictive narcotic. This is particularly true in a representative system, where, for politicians who are accountable to voters and special interests, reducing entitlements is a good way to get kicked out of office. Thus, government becomes an ever costlier operation, demanding increasingly more of the people’s wealth to sustain. Today it consumes over 40 percent of the income of the 300 million people in the wealthiest nation in the world—and still isn’t even close to staying within budget. Apparently no amount of money would be enough, because the growth of the government’s financial commitments continually outpaces the growth of its income.

When crises hit, that tends to open the door for even greater government expansion. In today’s financial calamity, many people are crying out for help from the government, and the government is all too happy to oblige. It is on an expansion binge that could potentially dwarf the New Deal. It got into the mortgage business by taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It got into the insurance business by purchasing aig. It now owns shares of America’s largest financial institutions. It is contemplating keeping America’s spectacularly unsuccessful carmakers afloat.

The argument, in every case, is that the failure of these enterprises would be too catastrophic to accept. That we must prevent the loss of millions of jobs, and this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem.

Thus, the government is printing dollars and borrowing from foreigners in once undreamed-of sums. And because these fixes haven’t yet put a dent in the problem, there is absolutely no way to tell how much further the government will allow itself to go.

Amazingly, all this has occurred under a president who calls himself a “market-oriented guy.” His successor, and the strongly Democratic Congress he will be working with, are far more interested in controlling the details of the economy in pursuit of their vision of social justice through wealth redistribution. President-elect Obama is also preparing for the government to provide some form of universal health care, a move that, in the words of the Economist, “seems to be defying the gloomy view that the state of the economy rules out such an expensive initiative.” At what point, then, would economic reality rule out such an expensive initiative? America has become too addicted to government to seriously consider such a question.

The fact is, this economic crisis was created by overborrowing and overspending. Yet the government behaves as though the solution is to borrow and spend all the more.

The costs of these mushrooming entitlements include higher taxes, mounting inflation and deeper debt, all of which have horrible economic and even geopolitical ramifications of their own. Consider, for example, the loss of sovereignty America is experiencing because of its skyrocketing indebtedness to China. On top of that, however, are the poisonous personal effects of government dependency, which can include decreased sense of individual responsibility, degraded work ethic, the fragmentation of families, and a sense of entitlement that engenders selfishness, thanklessness and unhappiness. Nasty kickbacks.

Still, as evidence of governmental failure mounts—and it continues to prove in arena after arena to be the least efficient and most wasteful of institutions—people’s faith in the government being the best solution is largely unshaken. Perhaps they sense that events are barreling toward a painful end and are hoping against hope there is yet some magical federal fix that will prevent the pain.

But there isn’t. The United States is broke. Soon, despite political promises to the contrary, the entitlements will stop. And to a nation deeply addicted to them, you can count on there being some violent withdrawal symptoms.

The situation calls to mind a warning God gave to the ancient nation of Israel, recorded in 1 Samuel 8. He governed the people directly, with a comparatively light touch, through a small collection of human leaders. While the people obeyed God, He blessed them for it. But when they disobeyed, curses began to befall them, and they felt they would be better off with a human king and a system of government more like the nations around them had.

If that’s what you want—fine, God responded. But realize that that king’s government is bound to expand. He will introduce burdensome taxes. He will create bureaucratic bloat. His rulership will grow increasingly oppressive. This biblical passage provides extraordinary insight into the most common pitfall of man’s government: its tendency to amass power, property and wealth—wealth that should remain in the hands of the citizens.

The form of God’s government described in the Bible, particularly in the laws He gave for the governance of the physical nation of Israel, is far more generous, far less intrusive, and far more interested in building the prosperity of its people, than anything we see in the world today. Studying it highlights the deep flaws in America’s system. (And these laws still apply, in spiritual principle, within the Church today.)

Consider some things God’s government does not do. It does not manage people’s money—for health care or retirement. Remove those programs from America’s books, and you instantly solve the budget problems.

God’s government does not own and run businesses that compete with businesses run by the people. It facilitates wealth creation rather than interfering with it. It encourages assets to remain in families generation to generation, which increases general prosperity and family unity.

Further, God’s government operates nothing like a welfare system as we see today. With few exceptions, the poor are cared for—and encouraged to return to earning their daily bread—not federally, but locally, through laws requiring specific acts of charity from family and community. The idea that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that everyone is cared for regardless of their own effort directly contradicts biblical laws. Though most people would strongly criticize any government that didn’t have a robust welfare system, the laws that God gave His model nation encourage responsibility, hard work, strong character, and community and family cohesion—all while making government far more efficient. (Read our article “A New World Economy” for more on this subject.)

There are myriad other differences between God’s form of government and the socialistic one increasingly being employed in the U.S., many of which effectively reduce the reach of government into people’s financial affairs and keep the size of government small. As Gerald Flurry brought out in his latest article, America’s Founding Fathers demonstrated a fundamental respect for that model of government in creating a Constitution that limited the powers of the new government rather than detailing, as the president-elect once said, “what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

This form of government comes with many benefits, but a very noticeable one, as alluded to in 1 Samuel 8, is the fact that it is so much less expensive. It doesn’t require the leeching of an enormous amount of wealth from the people in order to fund its perpetual expansion. God has always funded His government, and always will, with a general flat tax of 10 percent, called a tithe (e.g. Leviticus 27:30, 32). Two years out of every seven, there is an additional tithe meant to support specific individuals who don’t have the benefit of family support. Simple. Functional. Efficient. It is how God operates His Church even today. Soon, upon Jesus Christ’s Second Coming, He will establish that government worldwide.

Surely many would look at these laws and scoff. They can choose to put their faith in government—for a while longer, anyway. But the kickbacks will only get nastier and nastier.

Why not put faith in God instead?