Necessary and Proper?

The Necessary and Proper Clause, or Elastic Clause, as stated at the end of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, is clearly a concern, in light of recent and ongoing events. Elastic indeed! This clause states that one of the purposes/privileges of Congress is "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, (which are many and varied) and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Wow. That kind of leaves it wide open, doesn't it. They can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as they can convince people that whatever it is . . is "necessary and proper".

Personally, I'm not sure that the stimulating bailout plan is/was necessary OR proper in the eyes of the public majority. I am still confused as to how and why this bill came into being so fast, and was shoved through Congress with such incredible speed. Something's not right here, and this problem comes to mind again when I read about the Elastic Clause: "This has historically been a very important phrase in the Constitution, because it has allowed the national government to expand its powers into a variety of areas that were not anticipated by the founders." Again, I'm not sure that this is/was a good thing. The concerns of many people are being laid by the wayside as a thing of naught. I don't mind our Representatives and Senators voting on the stimulus package, if they're doing it in a 'necessary and proper' fashion. But I, and many of those in our circle of influence, do not agree that this has happened. I find these recent events, with regard to our government interfering in the financial sector, disturbing and very much UNnecessary.

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/haste-makes-stimulus-waste

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2568&go=4

Another point of interest: Yesterday or today I caught a talk show that I can't seem to place. I wish I had written down the link. In a nutshell, someone was pointing out that not only did Sarah Palin cut spending for Alaska again, but that the state of Alaska, under her leadership, has a significant amount of money in savings. Enough money, evidently, to carry them through at least 2 years of diminished oil profits, due to the reduced gasoline prices. They don't NEED or necessarily want the bailout money. Their state's economy doesn't need to be 'stimulated' because they have taken the old-fashioned, common sense approach and saved for a rainy day. And now the governor, Governor Palin, has wisely cut spending to match the money coming in. I believe it's called 'balancing the budget'. Seems pretty responsible.