Premiers can make a lot of political trouble for a Prime Minister especially those that are from the same party.
The Prime Minister has become a convenient whipping boy for state politicians that complain about Federal taxes while saying that the Federal Government's stinginess is not helping with their state's expenditures.
The case against budget deficits has several arguments. One argument is that it is unfair that future debts are paid by our children.
Today's governments are making commitments to their employees which future governments are unable to fulfil without raising taxes. Future governments faced with this issue will find a way to welsh on their predecessors' promises.
The government has already implemented all the tax cuts it can afford and avoiding the real issue of expenditure. A good budget that does not achieve surplus of a billion without new taxes is a bad budget
With a deficit, the best thing that our government can do is to get out of the way of entrepreneurs that can take advantage of chances to produce goods and services.
When government use taxpayers' money, they get future generations of taxpayers into debt and they seldom use the monies as efficiently as the private sector. The government's issue is that it seldom a lack of specialist knowledge and a disregard for the public's opinion.
Both the US and Australia have penalised investing by spending consuming more and will cause a reduction in productivity and hamper long-term economic growth.
The election campaign extracted three promises from Bob Hawke: 1) no tax increases, 2) no increase in government expenditure without economic growth and 3) reduction in the budget deficit.