Bailout brouhaha

I'm no expert on the economy, but the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan makes me a little skeptical. Because I think the government should cut taxes as low as they possibly can, I tend to oppose almost anything that involves the government spending money. $700 billion sure seems like a LOT of money.

I also tend to be a strict constitutionalist: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to do something, the government probably doesn't have a right to do it. I wonder, when did it become the government's job to make sure the economy does well and to prevent recessions and depressions from happening? My best guess is around the time of the Great Depression, when president Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and other social programs to help fight the Depression.

Although the Depression began to lift during FDR's presidency, I doubt that his social programs were the cause. The economy, just like the seasons, goes through cycles: sometimes it does well, sometimes there is a recession, and once in a great while there is a depression. Obviously, economic downturns aren't good, but in time they will reverse themselves. Is avoiding a recession worth creating unjust, expensive, possibly unconstitutional programs?

The last thing we need is a bigger, more powerful government. That's why I think the government should always err on the side of doing too little rather than too much.