The authority? Straight from Article I, Section 8 – the “Spending Clause.” That little gem lets Congress tax you, then “provide for the general welfare.” Translation: if they can spin it as “good for America,” it’s fair game, whether it really is or not.

Founding Father and former President James Madison thought that meant sticking to national defense and interstate commerce. He said in a speech on the Cod Fishery Bill in 1792: “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post- roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Guess he was right, huh? The government has done most of that.
Fast-forward to now, and the “general welfare” looks suspiciously like “general vote-buying.”

Want to know why your tax dollars are paying for gender-sensitivity training for armadillos or a $2 million mural of climate anxiety? Because it’s “necessary and proper.”

And by “necessary,” Congress (especially the Democrats) means “necessary to keep donors and voters happy.”

So yes – doling out grant money is constitutional. But like a lot of things Washington does, “constitutional” doesn’t mean “wise.” It just means they found a loophole big enough to drive a pork barrel through.