With few exceptions, individual candidates were less a factor in yesterday's election than the wave sweeping the country. This year, voters' discontent over the weak economy, rising health care costs and unsustainable government spending, as well as other issues, shifted control of the House of Representatives to Republicans.

This year's wave favored the GOP and also some candidates linked to the tea party, mostly at the expense of Democrats.

In Butler County, Mike Kelly rode the wave to victory, winning the 3rd Congressional District race against incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper. Just two years ago, it was Dahlkemper who rode a different wave, a wave of anger at outgoing President George W. Bush and Republicans.

The shape of the economy, more than anything politicians do over the next two years, will determine if there is yet another wave threatening incumbents of both parties in 2012.

If an economic recovery begins to take hold and jobs are being created, a wave is less likely. But if unemployment remains high in 2012, incumbents again will be targeted by frustrated voters. And then, because of the gains made in yesterday's election, many Republicans could be ousted for failing to improve the economy, as so many of their campaign ads promised.

Voters have signaled that they are not happy and they expect results, meaning the newly elected Republicans will be expected to fulfill their campaign promises, especially by cutting federal spending and reducing budget deficits.

After victorious Republicans finish celebrating, the sober reality of the job ahead will hit them.

Even though few candidates in 2010 were willing to offer details on how they would cut federal spending or reduce the deficit, now that the election is over, they will be expected to produce. And for all the talk about earmarks, wasteful spending and fraud, the big money is in entitlements and defense. Apart from military spending, the exploding costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medi-caid are largely responsible for looming budget deficits.

If Republicans, and Demo-crats for that matter, are serious about reducing future deficits, they have to make serious changes to entitlements and put military spending on a diet.

Without serious changes in these big-four spending items, the federal budget will remain in the red. Because the options, such as raising the retirement age, lifting the income cap for Social Security taxes or reducing Medicare reimbursements, are so controversial, few politicians are willing to talk about them — particularly during campaign season. And cutting defense, which represents 56 percent of discretionary federal spending, is always difficult because of the influence of the military contractors. Due to the linkage between military spending, campaign contributions and jobs with military contractors, the defense budget will be difficult to cut. But people serious about trimming deficits, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, know it must be cut.

But just as the defense budget has constituencies that will fight any cuts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs have beneficiaries who will try to block cost-reduction moves.

Beyond the Medicare and Medicaid programs, health care spending remains a huge problem that the health care reform law largely failed to address.

On the state level, Gov.-elect Tom Corbett has the same obligation as the Republicans just elected to Congress to make spending cuts and other changes to match his campaign promises.

The 2010 campaign was consistently negative and largely free of specifics about what candidates would do if elected. It's now time for all those who won to get serious, to follow up on their vague campaign promises with action.

If they don't, they could very well find themselves being swept out of office by another wave of voter discontent in 2012.