Question of least consequence?

Comments on Rob Burgess “The real reason to bash Swan”, 9/05/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-Federal-Budget-2011-Treasurer-deficit-s-pd20110509-GNSW3?OpenDocument&src=sph

Question of least consequence, are you kidding?

Rob Burgess argues that questions about “how big is the deficit, could it have been smaller, and how long will it take to erase”, are the most likely source of the bashing for Swan’s fourth budget at the budget night, but they are also the question of least consequence.

I would question why?

One should ask a serious question of why those are the only main reasons for increasing budget deficits for 2010-11:

“From the MYEFO figure of $41 billion, the budget deficit is now expected to come in at $51 billion. Roughly a third of the blowout is from funding natural disaster relief in Queensland, Victoria and WA. The remainder is largely split between a drop in capital gains tax (housing falling, shares drifting) and weaker corporate tax receipts as the China-led terms-of-trade boom continues to punish non-resources-related businesses.”

Why shouldn’t one ask about the quality of budget in the first place? That is, why didn’t the government expect some possible impact on its revenue sources when it made that budget? Or was the government too optimistic than warranted at that time?

Besides, has there any positive side story of revenue impact that that should be included, or there has been none during 2010-11?

If one looks from this aspect, then those are not least consequence questions any more.