I think you're giving them all way too much credit. I'm fairly sure it's not that they've got their head 'in' the kitty litter, but more like their heads are 'full' of kitty litter -- and -- not the clean variety....
OK, so you said what I was thinking, but refrained from saying outright in case it was a little strong for some sensibilities.
I'm afraid, sadly, that the ones here 'know' their (at best) Socialists and, while they may not have known the inner working of a lot of the bill, they certainly knew about all the perks, paybacks, and social engineering they managed to stuff into it in the dark of night.
They don't have to be a Socialists to create lurks, perks and take backhanders under the table. Politicians from all walks are guilty of serving their own interests before the common good. However, there is a difference between being a Socialist and having social values that seek to serve the common good. Seems to me that many Americans (particularly those of a Republican persuasion) confuse Socialism and Communism and fear being turned into the USRA (United Socialist Republics of Amarica) if the government is allowed to control national health schemes and the like. It's a likely product of the Cold War and McCarthy warnings about "Commies under the bed", but sheesh, the refusal to implement national schemes, based on fear is all wrong.
Countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain oppose Communism and Socialism in their purest forms, yet they operate successful national schemes to serve the common good... and all within free democratic societies. Seems to me that the US corporations who would rather not help fund national schemes through their taxes have somehow convinced the American people that government control of national health, education and the like is pure evil. It's OK for government to have control over war and numerous related spy agencies, though. Thing is, that's great for business and production... and their tax dollars come rolling back in via government grants to develop newer and better ways to kill.
There's a good possibility we've hit that magic 51% level here that actually thinks Gov't is the solution to personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility is great for those things within ones sphere of influence/control, but what about all those people who fall through the cracks... who, through no fault of their own (strictly limited incomes), can NOT afford decent health care or education for themselves or children? In civilised societies somebody has to take up the slack, so why not government in a non-profit manner, and funded by the billions in taxes that go towards the proliferation of war? From my observations of things here in Australia, where once government owned and controlled assets (electricity) have been privatised, big business is not the answer because prices have skyrocketed and ordinary folk are having to go without to keep the lights on... while their high rise office buildings are lit up like Christmas trees - even on weekends when they're empty - at our expense.
Yup, at the end of the day, it all comes back to corporate greed and extravagence... rather than government control.