What does he have to show for it? Well, he has a pretty good armed services, roads that he can drive on, a food supply that is safe, police/fire departments, air traffic controllers, a stable business environment in which to invest his money, a more or less well-managed economy, and a host of other services that he no doubt uses but feels are somehow lavished on him for free.
I see you as a government employee...
You have a point. Maybe *the* point, but it's difficult to prove a negative - Civilization isn't the norm but how many people really know that, this is why our level of "poverty" as officially described is at some level almost comical relative to certain locales. Obesity, 2 cars and a roof over your head w/ Nintendo, stereo, radio and microwave, gas oven ,washer and dryer, cell phone or land line, internet access, etc., You kiddin' me?
Politicians have done well with emphasising self-ownership and entrepeneurial incentives. If you choke out the small business owner, any country is hurting. When I was in the army not that long ago living conditions were a step *up* for a few citizens. "Oh, Sarge treats us just fine, lets us sleep in till 5 o'clock".
There are legitimate functions for government. Socialism constitutes 60% of government spending leaving 40% for those functions that are defensibly legitimate. Our armed forces are superb. You are naive if you believe most of the other functions you list are of excellent quality and intellectually challenged if you don't realize that many of the things that function acceptably are in spite of government meddling. I would add that it is questionable whether government has any defensible role with regard to the economy.