Too clever by half and not clever enough

Commentators are measuring this budget not against long term benchmarks, such as whether it meets the government's oft-stated desire to increase productivity, growth and hence the wealth available to all, but whether it meets a Treasurer-imposed and insignificant benchmark.

Indeed the benchmark may be worse than useless. The government missed its last year budget deficit of $23B by around $20B (we won't know the exact figure until later), so how good do you think this year's budget estimate really is.

Particularly as it forecasts growth in receipts of ten percent. They'd be the only business in town forecasting turnover growth in this range, and it follows over-optimism about growth in previous years, leading directly to the failure to meet their budget target last year by a factor of 100%.

From a political perspective this is the problem with Labor that voters have spotted – they are very good at promise, but lousy at delivery. That means that the measures in this budget designed to dig Labor out of political trouble are likely to fail.

The budget takes money from miners through the MRRT and from the community through the carbon tax, and gives it to 1.5M Australian families, some of whom are the "battlers" who gave John Howard his majorities, and more lately at a state level Barry O'Farrell and Campbell Newman theirs.

By playing Robin Hood Labor hopes to, if not win the next election, come a creditable second.

So how are these "battlers" likely to react to the largesse. Well they'll most probably spend it when it arrives – they have limited ability to save because living costs have been rising faster than incomes – and then they'll still see increases in the cost of utilities and living.

Will they net government receipts out against expenditures and worship at the shrine of the golden Swan, or will they be susceptible to the argument that the government is treating them like geese – taking money out of their pocket with one hand, and giving it back to them with the other and expecting them to be eternally grateful.

It's true that John Howard was a master of the art of the electoral bribe, but it worked for him because at the end of the day, things really were getting better, and there was a serious story of economic reform and advancement.

There was confidence that he would actually deliver, and that the bribe wasn't just to cover his shortcomings – it was a sort of dividend, paid for out of good economic management.

I doubt whether it will be the same with the politics of this budget. In 12 months time we will know that receipts fell short of estimates and expenditure exceeded them, and we'll be looking at another substantial deficit, with an election just down the track.

It will be far too late for misdirection and legerdemain then, and the government will wish it had gone down the path of fiscal rectitude, but all to no avail.