Those economists who have joined the smarties in proclaiming Julia Gillard's resolve to get the budget back to surplus this financial year to be purely political and of no economic merit are revealing how little they know about political economy - the politics of economic policy.
They don't understand the vital role faithful adherence to "frameworks" has played in giving Australia its widely envied record on fiscal responsibility.
It ought to be blindingly apparent just how much trouble successive governments in the United States and Europe have got themselves and their people into by their chronic failure to discipline their spending and taxing the way our governments have for many years.
Our pollies have done this by sticking to policy frameworks - in particular, the bipartisan "medium-term fiscal strategy" to "achieve budget surpluses, on average, over the medium term" - regularly supplemented by more explicit, shorter-term targets.
When, in the throes of the global financial crisis, Kevin Rudd embarked on huge fiscal stimulus, he nonetheless bound the government to various strictures to keep his actions consistent with the medium-term strategy and the requirements of Peter Costello's Charter of Budget Honesty Act.
He pledged to ensure all stimulus programs were temporary - which they were. And as early as February 2009 he committed the government to a "deficit exit strategy" in which it pledged to avoid further income tax cuts and limit the real growth in government spending to an average of 2 per cent a year until the budget was back into significant surplus.
So far, the government has stuck to that commitment. When, in the 2010 election campaign, Gillard took Treasury's projection that the budget would be back in surplus by 2012-13 and turned it into a solemn promise, she was binding herself more than the medium-term strategy required her to.
As the future has unfolded, this has proved an ever-more difficult promise to keep.
In consequence, keeping the surplus in prospect has required Gillard to find further savings. Question is: why is that a bad thing?
It's not as if the economy's fallen off a cliff. It's continued growing about its medium-term trend rate, with unemployment steady in the low fives for the past three years.
What's more, the tightening in fiscal policy is occurring when the Reserve Bank has plenty of scope to compensate by easing monetary policy - with an outside chance this could help lower the dollar a little.
This is consistent with the strategy: that, except in emergencies, fiscal policy moves in a more inexorable, medium-term way, with the far more easily adjusted monetary policy used as the "swing instrument". Admittedly, a lot of the savings measures have been cosmetic. But shifting planned expenditure by more than just a few weeks either side of June 30 is real. And not all the measures have just been "reprofiling".
Wayne Swan and Penny Wong have been chipping away at middle-class welfare in a way they probably wouldn't have were it not for their alleged "surplus fetish". Why's that a bad thing?
They've significantly reformed the tax treatment of superannuation, reformed the concessional treatment of company cars under the fringe-benefits tax, begun phasing out the dependent spouse tax rebate and are means-testing the baby bonus and the private health insurance rebate.
In last week's effort they cut the baby bonus for subsequent children (it was a substitute for paid parental leave, which has since been introduced) and further tightened the health insurance rebate.
A further consequence of the surplus promise has been insisting new spending commitments be matched by savings on existing programs. Why's that a bad thing?
As for the smarties' claim that Gillard's motive in trying so hard to keep her surplus promise is purely political, it's naive. All of us do things for mixed, even ulterior motives. Pollies are no exception.
The real question is, regardless of Gillard's political motives, is what she's been doing consistent with disciplined fiscal policy? I've been trying to show it is.
Balancing budgets is politically hard. Most voters, interest groups, backbenchers and even spending ministers don't give a stuff. The temptation not to bother is huge. So it's crazy for the one group that cares - economists - to be urging pollies not to bother meeting their commitments to run a tight ship.
Of course, it would be a different matter if the economy was falling off a cliff. In any case, the smarties and slackos may yet get their wish. If you listen carefully to what Swan and Wong are saying about the future, it seems last week's effort to get the surplus back on track will be their last.
Should the revenue side deteriorate much further, they're ready to let it go.