Very often, this question is followed up with a second part; it goes something like this:
With the nation involved in two wars, and a military budget that makes up a majority of the nation's expenditures, why don't Tea Party members want to cut military spending? The Tea Party talks about cutting education spending, but that's only 4% of the overall budget. Why not start with the military.
Both questions demonstrate an inherent lack of constitutional knowledge on the part of the questioner.
When asked about spending cuts, most Tea Party members will offer an answer that sounds absolutely preposterous to liberals and anyone else who values the status quo in the era of entitlements. Tea Party members will say something along the lines of "I'd start by eliminating the Department of Education, or the Department of Agriculture."
The reason departments like these are mentioned is because there is no reference to these types of agencies in the Constitution, which means that the specific area of governance which falls under these agencies' purview should be relegated to individual states.
Take the Department of Education for example. The federal government allocates 4% of the federal budget to the agency, and establishes a multitude of laws identifying what should be taught and how it should be taught, yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say that educating America's children is the responsibility of the U.S. government.
This is not to say that the public has no responsibility to educate its children, however. This simply means that the area of education is a responsibility of individual states, as Article X of the Bill of Rights says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Tea Party members use this amendment as their guide to locate spending cuts. Since the Constitution does expressly identify the protection and security of the United States as a responsibility of the federal government, Tea Party members don't see massive military spending cuts as particularly wise (although there is always room for improvement and spending reductions). The departments of education, agriculture, and other agencies and programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, however, are prime candidates for dramatic budget cuts, because the constitution does not expressly identify them as the U.S. government's responsibilities.
Yes, Tea Party members are committed to federal spending cuts. While some may see cutting the Department of Education from the national budget as extreme, the reality is that it would provide some immediate benefits. Not only would it free up federal tax dollars and eliminate complicated and unnecessary bureaucracy, it would return the onus for public education back to where it belongs: to the states and local governments that know their communities best.
It's important to acknowledge also, however, that not all Tea Party members wish to completely eliminate the aforementioned departments. Some simply believe that each of them should be scoured for as many cuts as possible.
More Tea Party Myths:
- The Tea Party is a direct response to President Barack Obama's Election
- The Tea Party is a racist movement
- Tea Party members aren't really committed to spending cuts
- The Tea Party is unsustainable and will go away in a couple years