Jumping into the net.

I believe we need to have an economic "safety net" in America.  I'm glad we do.  But why do both liberals and conservatives call it a "safety net".  If you have a safety net, I believe the general goal is that you are not in the net unless absolutely necessary.  A tight rope walker ideally, never wants to be in the safety net.  But in American society I question whether the our social safety net is really a place of last resort or if many of our citizens are jumping and not falling into the safety net.  Hilary Clinton speaking at the 10th anniversary celebration for the Center for American Progress mentioned that the progressive agenda is ensuring Justice, Liberty and Equality.  But then mentioned that because of policies from the 'other side', mothers can't get the formula they need to feed their babies.  Of course the social safety net should include formula for infants, that's a no-brainer.  My question is how do you 'fall' into a safety net that provides formula for your babies?  How often does it occur that someone goes from comfortably supporting a family to a situation where without government help they will not spend the $20 a week for formula.  Are there really families out there in that situation where unless this check comes from the government they will let their babies starve?  If there actually are these cases, and I'm guessing there are very few, I fully support government funds to buy them formula.  What would be the proper name for a net that people willingly jump into?  Probably a children's bouncy house.

2013 Goverment Shutdown.

This latest budget showdown has made me realize something very interesting; the constitution seems to be rigged in favor of conservatives.  There are three ways to make an existing law virtually ineffective.  You can file legal injunctions in court to delay the implication of a law while waiting for a judicial ruling.  The President, representing the executive branch of government can direct agencies to simply not enforce certain laws.  These first two methods are available to Republicans and Democrats alike and both are used by both parties to pursue their own agenda.  The third method, as we've seen recently is for the House of Representatives, holding the power of the purse, to simply not fund a law.  This third method really tips the balance of power to conservatives because most laws passed by congress tend to give the government more power which is something conservatives generally tend to oppose.  Democrats are just more likely to propose laws that require funding.  The House of Representatives cannot create funding for a law that doesn't exist, if it did, that would really benefit Democrats.  The House can however remove funding from an existing law.  This may be an accident of history, but in modern times it certainly gives conservatives an advantage.