Again the Deficit, And Original Intent

I've always been intrigued by the idea of original intent, and (cautiously) wanted to follow it.  After all, Founding Fathers who freely cited John Locke, cribbed from Montaigne, and had proclivities for rum running had, somehow, to be at least closet liberals and couldn't have been totally off course in their thinking. It's a dangerous leaning on my part, because it turns out the Founders are not always predictable, and, like good analogies, sometimes can be stretched beyond their limits.  And the more conservative justices on the federal bench tend to rely heavily on original intent at the core of their argument.
Of course, politicians of all stripes these days also like to cite the original intent of the Founding Fathers in support of their policies. (Though no one has as yet found a convenient way to do so in regard to streaming movies to your cable neighbor's discontent.)  So from time to time I like to pick up my motheaten copy (actually, on my Kindle) and see what some Founding Fathers really said in the Federalist Papers.  Thus, recently I was perusing the Federalist and stumbled upon #34, which covers what Alexander Hamilton had to say about the federal deficit.
Hamilton, you will recall, was our Financial Founding Father. At the end of the revolution, the new country was virtually bankrupt, and all the states had enormous war debts. It was largely through Hamilton's efforts that the country became a prosperous republic by the early 1800's.  So, it was reasonable to expect a skilled financier to express conservative financial views. Imagine then my surprise to find that he was proud as a peacock to proclaim that the Constitution contains no limit on the federal deficit, despite significant efforts by some at the convention to include such a limit.  Instead, he was horrified at the idea of a debt ceiling!
His rationale was briefly as follows.  Unexpected things, like war, pestilence - you know the list, happen, and the nation must have the capacity to deal with the unexpected at all times. And, here is the wondrous thing, it must do so without removing the funding from previous programs the Congress has passed "to promote the general welfare"! It must act quickly then at the cost of incurring national debt, and cover the cost by increasing revenue through some form of taxation. His words sound like they could have been spoken on the floor of the House during the debt ceiling debate earlier this year, if only they had been.
Well, score one for the liberals.