One of the techniques that our federal government has used for decades,, and possibly not unique to only the American form of government, is what I like to call the "slight of hand", or the "shell game" tactic.
Here's how my theory works, after a questionable or marginal legislation is passed through Congress and signed into bill, the real scrutiny of the flaws or limitations in the particular legislation begins.
Of course, this critical and detailed analysis of the legislation should have been completed long before the bill becomes a law, but, because Congress is more interested in forcing their own personal agenda upon the American citizenry, they don't allow the bill to see the light of day or to be studied by the American people until the damage has already been done.
Now, here's how the "slight of hand" technique really works; after the bill has been signed into law, it generally takes time to implement the actual changes associated with the law.
This is where the opportunity to fully understand what's in the law takes place.
Even if Congress accepts or admits that their legislation has some limits or shortcomings, which they will often admit in front of a microphone, they really aren't concerned with these shortcomings, as they don't need to be.
They are buffered.
Because they create these laws, they always protect themselves.
One example would be the cost of living annual (COLA) increases in salaries.
The government encourages employers to provide yearly COLA increases.
But, they realize that this isn't always possible or practical, based on the economic circumstances each year.
Employees may go through long periods or through cycles of years without COLA increases in their salaries, in spite of the general cost of living expenses that we all see each year.
This sounds reasonable, right? Well, for the working class this is how it works.
If the economy is robust, employers pass on a portion of their profits to their employees.
However, if the economy is anemic, employers generally have to make the tougher decisions like not passing a cost of living increase to their employers, and most thoughtful people can understand this, whether they agree with it or not.
But, for Congress, this COLA increase is automatically passed on to them regardless of the current economic state.
Oh sure, they can vote to not accept the COLA, but they simply don't.
Regardless of a down economy, regardless of our current indebtedness, regardless of our unemployment rate, they willingly accept the COLA increase.
It states, with regards to their salaries, that this increase will automatically be enacted each year, unless Congress chooses to formally vote against it, which they simply don't do.
We have over 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, which the members of Congress created.
We have over 8% unemployment (using conservative numbers) and we have a stagnant economy using their own statistics from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Wouldn't that be grounds for a responsible employer to make the decision freeze the COLA? And the manner in which they pass their salary increases under the cover of darkness, is disingenuous, at best.
While we are all busy going about our daily lives, trying to provide for our families, Congress passes on this increase to themselves, and we are all too busy to know about it or care.
Let's take into consideration the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a flawed piece of legislation, that never received the critical scrutiny that was warranted.
The PPACA is an excellent example of my "slight of hand" or "shell game" theory, as while we are distracted with life, with the upcoming Supreme Court constitutionality hearing, and with the visions of potential repeal dancing in our heads, the federal government has quietly and methodically gone about the task of implementing many of the changes called for in this law.
Their hope is likely that the changes will be so extensive and monumental, that even if the Supreme Court determines the law is unconstitutional, and even if against all odds, in my humble opinion, Congress decides to repeal the PPACA, the changes already implemented will be virtually impossible to reverse.
The damage will be too far reaching and too intertwined to overturn.
For example, state Insurance Commissioners' collectively were outspoken opponents to the PPACA.
However, as time has passed, and each individual state Insurance Commissioner realized that if they sat on the sidelines and voiced their opposition that they risked a real possibility that the feds would move in and take over everything.
Insurance Commissioners' quickly realized, whether they agreed with the PPACA or not, that it was wiser too begin to implement the changes being called for at the state level (like state exchanges), or the risked missing out on the millions and millions of "free dollars" that the federal government was handing out to the willing state participants.
Thus, even the states who adamantly profess they are against the PPACA, their Insurance Commissioners' are beginning to make the required PPACA changes in order to receive the federal money that is only available to the willing participants.
The power of money remains a great motivational tool for accomplishing things that would otherwise be considered unpalatable or against one's principles.
Never underestimate the influence that money can have upon any of us, especially the politicians.
Whoever suggested, "just follow the money," was absolutely correct.
And, this is all happening while we citizens are focused upon our own lives, and our own set of problems.
And why should we need to focus our precious time and attention on these societal matters, isn't that why we vote people into Congress, so that they can represent our own needs and desires? At least, that's what our elected officials are hoping for, and counting on, while they exercise their own feats of illusion.
Maybe we all better wake up and start paying closer attention to the man (men and women of Congress) behind the curtain!