Actually, it does. A very few - powers to carry out programs that will equally benefit all. Such programs are very few and far between, but they occasionally turn up. The Framers were more or less divided into two groups: Those who thought the General Welfare clause extended Congress's power to those rare programs, and those who thought it didn't. Alexander Hamilton was in the former group, and James Madison was in the latter.
When the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "welfare" recognized: "General welfare", which meant the well-being and prosperity of all Americans equally, and "local welfare", which meant well-being and prosperity of isolated groups or individuals over others.
The Framers had long arguments over what the "Welfare Clause" they had just included into the Constitution, meant. They had written the Constitution with the idea that it created the Fed govt, and assigned it its powers; and that the Fed had only the powers it listed and no others. Some said that the "Welfare Clause" meant Congress could spend money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if those programs weren't specifically named elsewhere in the Constitution. As such, the "Welfare Clause" slightly expanded the power of the Fed govt beyond the powers specifically listed. Others said that the "Welfare Clause" did NOT add any powers beyond those already listed.
But if it didn't add those powers, then what was the point of including it in the Constitution at all?
But neither group of Framers, said that it added the power to run programs that benefitted only some Americans (such as Health care). They all agreed that it did not. 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the former group was correct: the Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to spend tax money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if they weren't specifically listed in the Constitution... but not programs that benefitted only certain groups.
