Her January 29 post argues that the MCTR is taxable because it is not “for promotion of the general welfare meaning it is based on need.” But is that what it means? Do we need to look to Hamilton and Madison to find out why the US Constitution gives Congress, in the Taxing and Spending Clause, the power to promote “the general welfare?” There’s some interesting history at this Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause 

Long story short: Supreme Court concedes “general welfare” means what Congress wants it to mean. California doesn’t use the term in its Constitution, at least in a way related to this issue, but the current interpretation of the federal provision would be persuasive. “Welfare” doesn’t just mean helping poor people.