It’s finally time for the real fun to begin. And I don’t mean football season.

The runoffs are over; opponents have been chosen for the November elections, and now the candidates have to quit talking about each other and discuss the actual issues.

Watching them campaign will be a blast. Right now, swine flu is more popular than Congress. Our nation’s elected officials are on thin ice, and they know it.

Political philosophy will pop up a time or two, and the usual amount of mud will be slung, but the biggest “issue” out there is the economy, which still stinks, despite what V.P. Joe Biden has been saying on his “Summer of Recovery” tour.

Any politician who ignores that fact might as well give up and go home now.

Congressional candidates used to get along by promising more pork. But the public is fed up with excessive spending and a skyrocketing national debt. We, the voters, are ready to see Congress spend less, starting now.

This puts candidates accustomed to buying votes with promises and pork in a bind. Asking them to cut spending is like asking Oprah to cut the carbs.

Professional politicians who can’t — or won’t — cut spending are already saying the solution to our economic woes is raising taxes. They vow that federal spending has already been “cut to the bone.”

Despite such claims, some people believe there’s still a load of fat oozing out of D.C. If you’re one of them, ask your local congressional candidate to explain some of the pork projects buried in the current $780 billion “stimulus package.”

The administration says the stimulus bill has created or saved millions of jobs. Maybe so, but you have to wonder just how bad the nation needed to “save or create” the jobs involved with preparing a study about using yoga as a tool to combat hot flashes in menopausal women. Yes, we did.

If you like that one, you’ll probably love a few other pork projects cash-strapped taxpayers are now funding, including:

A $6.1 million expenditure for a visitors center at Audubon National Wildlife Refuge near Bismarck, N.D., which is visited by fewer than 80 people a day.

Or maybe the health-conscious taxpayer is glad to see $521,005 spent on a Chicago study to determine whether a soft drink tax would improve consumers’ health.

Ask your candidate to explain why he or she voted to spend $554,000 to replace windows in a visitors center at Mt. St. Helens. Even though the visitor center is closed.

And if the creators of the YouTube Web site are millionaires, why are taxpayers forking over $750,000 for University of North Carolina researchers to develop a “DanceTube” computer program modeled after You- Tube?

Maybe students can dance to music developed by Georgia Tech professors who received a $762,372 grant to study improvised music. By the way, other Georgia Tech researchers received almost $700,000 of stimulus money to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity and unfairness.

Speaking of monkeys, The Department of Health and Human Services has sent $71,623 to Wake Forest University to study how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine. I can make a pretty good guess for a whole lot less.

And in the ultimate act of compassion, the American Legacy Foundation is slated to receive almost half a million dollars to provide a few folks trying to quit smoking with smart phones, so they can contact their quitting support groups via text message or phone call.

Federal budgets cut to the bone? If your candidate tries to sell that fable, ask him to explain such spending abominations. Then do your country a favor and vote for a candidate who isn’t afraid to put the professional porkeaters on a dollar-free diet.

(Send your e-mail comments to: alex@newnan. com)