Boy you have to give the Salt Lake Tribune credit - they sure are pushing the earmark issue in the Senate race.  They have yet another story up on the Senate Race and earmarks.  In response to the challenges to the amount of earmarks he has taken, this is where Senator Bennett thinks we need to cut the budget - instead of earmarks.

Bennett said he explains his views to potential Republican delegates but he considers earmarks a side-show issue that distracts candidates, politicians and the public from the real fiscal challenges caused by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending.

"This is where the money is," he said. "This is where the spending has gone out of control."

Now I do not argue that spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is a big hunk of the budget, but is that really the place to start?  As I did in the comments yesterday, I would argue that it is not and I would use my argument against cutting military spending here as well.  You can not deny that there are places where spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security can be trimmed, but as Congressman Jason Chaffetz reminded attendees of his townhall meeting Monday night - as a country we made this commitment, we need to honor that commitment!

If you are going to go (as Sen. Bennet is) on raw percentages, what about discretionary spending.  That is 12% of the budget right off the bat.  Why touch Medicare?  Why not completely cut all discretionary, other mandatory and TARP funding Senator?  Those three combined equal Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid combined....

Obviously taking that route is idiotic.  To make a blanket statement that we should just cut "X" (where "X" equals a single piece of the budget pie) is the most simplistic tactic and one that we should not expect a Senator of Mr. Bennett's "experience" to use. 

So with that said, where do we start to cut.  I suppose one place to start is in the number of government employees in all departments (as Congressman Chaffetz suggested Monday) but that is not going to make that much of a dent either.  We could also take a look at the mandatory spending (such as agriculture price supports and crop insurance) that does not make a lot of sense.  Yes there are some farmers that could use the assistance, but there are others that don't.  Why don't we pro-rate those benefits based on income?  That would certainly be a more "progressive" solution (like our "progressive" tax system).  Speaking of pro-rating, why not pro-rate Medicare and Medicaid based on income.  There are lot of multi-millionaires out there who are getting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Couldn't we be looking at that?  I mentioned no-bid military contracts - we need to make sure that ALL government contracts are made in a cost effective - transparent manner.  There certainly are a lot of ideas out there and that is what we need - we need someone who is not stuck in the DC mindset - someone who can come up with ideas that are "outside the box"...that are outside of DC.

In full disclosure, I have not decided who I am going to support for Senate should I become a convention delegate.  The only thing that I do know is who I do NOT support and that is Bob Bennett.  Senator Bennett is, in my opinion, the poster child of what is wrong in DC.  Someone who is more invested in the propitiation of government, than he is in doing what is right for the country.  He is completely out of touch with Utahans and what is important to them.  He is stuck in the status quo mindset that has no room for creative thoughts that could solve this country's problems.  Iit is time for him to retire - either here to Utah or to his "home" in DC.