EDITORIAL: Cut, cut, cut — but what specifically should be cut?

U.S. Senate candidate Mike Johanns brought a familiar economic policy to Central Nebraska last week: cut taxes, cut regulations, cut wasteful spending.

Lower taxes are terrific, but without lower spending they are not getting the country anywhere but deeper in debt.

Johanns, a Republican, is far from the first to sing this refrain. Many candidates before him -- and surely many after him -- will propose the same policy.

 The problem is that there are no specifics in where to cut spending. "Wasteful spending" is a nice phrase, but it seems whichever party is in power finds more ways to spend than to cut. Waste, it seems, is only seen by those trying to get elected.

Democrat Scott Kleeb is similarly vague. He supports "paygo" where new spending or tax cuts are offset by spending cuts or new revenues. But he doesn't say what spending cuts or new revenues he'd support, except to close tax shelters and offshore tax havens.

 To their credit, both Johanns and Kleeb are calling for transparency in government spending. Johanns says he wants earmarks open to public scrutiny and debate. Kleeb wants government to adopt an open and competitive bidding process.

With the U.S. debt approaching $9.5 trillion, it's time for all politicians to take the issue seriously -- and that means identifying what they consider wasteful spending.

It would be refreshing to hear a candidate say what government programs should be trimmed and what should be bolstered. But unfortunately, too often voters just get vague statements that may state a philosophy, but that philosophy doesn't translate into much action.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having already cost $650 billion and the costs continuing, it's hard to make a dent in overall government spending. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.