It seems pretty clear that Labor's commitment to a surplus at this time is purely political. If they don't manage it they will be called liars and incompetents. That being said, I think it is important to start moving towards a surplus by cutting various pieces of spending and tax breaks (like negative gearing and 'middle class welfare'). However, whether this budget is actually in surpluss or slightly short of surpluss is economically irrelevent. Swan's only concern should be in delivering a budget that will keep Australia in a good economic position. Surplusses per se (and if there is a surplus it will be a very small one) have nothing to do with this.

The current budgetary position is a combination of lower revenue and higher spending. Although the Government should be applauded for reigning back the stimulus implemented during the GFC, to make further cuts to programs whilst revenue is still recovering is not helpful. In any case a large portion of the surplus appears to have been gained by playing accounting silly buggers. When a surplus is being pursued by pushing back and bringing forward expenditure, it's not a real surplus at all. In fact, doing this reduces efficiency (as rushing to spend funds in the previous fiscal leads to waste) and reduces co-investment and policy outcomes (by creating uncertainty about the timing of future funding).

If Swan had real backbone, he'd let the deficit occur or target subsidies for rich industries and tax breaks for rich people to achieve his surplus.

Australia is at the cross roads of needing to catch up in lacked social capital investment. We need to invest hugely in education, urban infrastructure and social housing, and whilst not all of these capital investment need to be raised through the budget and consolidated fund, it is in the absence of realistically increasing government revenue, justified to provide budget leverage funding to enable the necessary off-budget borrowings through guided superannuation funds investments incentives to occur programmatically, to secure finance capital for social program investments. This is precisely how well governed social-liberal democracies like The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Germany and others are funding their quality social infrastructure, .

I believe a budget surplus is a pre-election promise but something that may not be economically sound. In order to deliver a surplus either less spending needs to take place or higher taxation needs to occur. Already the retail sector is down on profits by as much as 30% which means tax income is down by a similar amount in that sector. Families are already struggling so any penny pinching from the family budget to create a surplus will lead to political suicide. Any cuts in spending will slow the economy even further and result in higher unemployment. Can't think where he will get the surplus from.

While it is important for a return to a surplus so that taxpayer dollars are unneccessarily servicing interest payments. I believe an accelerated return to surplus is irresponsible. It smacks of political ideology and on the face of it seems irresponsible when it hits important and fragile parts of our society. We continue to have negative gearing that costs the taxpayer $5 billion+ each year and huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry among others. It is clear that it wasn't economic management didn't save us from the GFC, mining did by hiding the parts of the economy that were affected and hence maintained consumer confidence.

Wayne has made a noose for his own neck - and that of the Government I might add. Better to have had some milestones which had to be reached as a condition precedent to a surplus would have led to better policy and better Government decision making. Yes, deficit reduction is good but at the right time - the issue is, is now the right time? I would think cutting spending at the very time when the country could be in for a rocky landing is not good policy when the opposite strategy would be being used to get the country out of recession. There is even a view in Europe at present that the current deficit reduction strategies might actually accentuate their debt problems because tightening fiscal policy is leading to increased usage of social spending on unemployment etc.

Whilst desirable, there is no urgency to balance the books. Don't skimp on infrastructure, research and education for the sake of the political imperative. The political debate should focus on how best to invest in Australia's future, running sustainable levels of debt if the investment is sound. We're better to argue about what constitutes good value for money rather than how much we want in the bank.

The money the government has already irresponsibly thrown away is necessarily going to cost something. I don't think it is a good thing that it will likely take a few years to recover from this government's spending splurges, but I do believe that it needs to take that long. The kinds of things politicians tend to cut on in the rare circumstances in which they do, seem to frequently be quite important things that lack powerful special interest groups such as scientific research, road maintenance, local government budgets etc. If I believed the government was capable of cutting in the many areas that I think government spending is doing little (or negative) good, such as commodity subsidies, consulting contracts (the many useless and expensive ones that is), middle class welfare and wasteful building projects, then I would be happy to support such spending cuts in pursuit of balancing the budget.

It is important that we aim for a balanced budget across the full span of the economic cycle.

I agree with imagele. The question really is: where are we now in the economic cycle? Are we in a period where there should be more 'give' by government, or more 'take'? With the Reserve Bank now making deep cuts to interest rates in order to spur flagging growth, it does appear counterproductive for the government to be moving in the opposite direction to the Reserve by cutting spending and effectively lowering growth.

The surplus will slow down the economy because it's actually reducing revenue and money flow from the real economy.

Whilst people may argue that now is the time to have a surplus so we can be better prepared for the future in case there is another GFC, it simply does not add up. The surplus has been achieved with the so called "reduction of spending", which essentially translates as social cuts and less money in the Australian economy. The consequence of this will be less money in Australian pockets and consequently less money in the real economy, pushing Australia into a recession.

This is also being done at a time of high risk in the Australian economy. The dollar is high which makes the country not competitive. Also, China's growth is slowing down, which means a smaller need of resources, which means the Australian resource economy relying on China will suffer. If the Australian economy is to recover, the government needs to increase revenue (through taxes to companies with high profits) and to inject that money back to Australian pockets and to the economy.

But we know, why that won't happen... because government all around the world are choosing to protect business and corporations rather than the individual. Choosing to lower taxes to high profit companies and impoverishing low and middle income citizens instead. Because in their view, we simply do not count when it comes to the economy.

It would be a better idea to budget for a manageable deficit, rather than have a politically required surplus.

This has been a very disappointing and erratic government, under both Rudd and Gillard. The insistence on returning the budget to surplus in 2012 looks to me to be politically driven and not grounded in strategic economic thinking. The government has thrown money around thoughtlessly on quite a few things and now proposes to cut deeply in areas that do not necessarily warrant cuts, simply for the sake of looking responsible. The pity of it is that this government can no longer be trusted either to spend wisely or to cut wisely. It simply lacks both wisdom and consistency. This compromises, also, any suggestion that it should raise taxes to create a surplus. Government already takes more than 24% of GDP and churns a heap of that through over large bureaucracies and into too many politically motivated welfare programs.

The only reason the Government is pushing the budget into surplus is to try score political points. They will probably fail in that anyway, but the real cost will be to the Australian people and the Australian economy. Record profits for banks, mining sector raking in billions... but cuts to the people and programs which can least afford it. When will the national interest and smart governance become the reason for government decision making? Only when we no longer let them get away with selling us down the river. The time for a budget surplus is when the economy is in danger of overheating. Now is not that time. This is high school level economics! There is a smell of panic in the push for a surplus regardless of economic conditions. I wish we had leaders with backbone and, dare I say it, integrity.

While I support spending cuts (living within our means), if the cuts are too big - particularly if they impact on foundational services such as Education and Health, the negative impact would I believe outweigh the benefit. I don't think we should be holding our politicians to their promises just for the sake of it - all wise leaders know when a change to a previous position is called for.

Budget deficit is less important than national deficit, we are low total budget deficit to GDP in country ranks, and it's not a great indicator anyway (North Korea has a total government deficit as a percent of GDP a tiny, very tiny, 1% of Australias - and it's hardly the miracle economy that Wayne Swan's "logic" would imply it should be).

Governments are unlike houses in an important way- they can raise taxes and finance their debts much more easily. For this reason, debt burdens are less of a problem for governments- sure not quite as little of a problem as the market had previously priced say European governments, but not a huge issue. The issue that does arise is when you've got so much debt that you can't make interest repayments (in this way a government actually is like a house- it just happens with much more debt, proportionally speaking). This is manifestly not true for Australia. Further, in a time where other economies are suffering we are in the unique position to be able to afford future-proofing investments in education, science, health & technology. A surplus in these circumstances is just an accounting trick. Howard has taught us a false lesson- it's not that governments should never spend money and seek surplus. Rather they should spend their money prudently.

In a rapidly changing world we are best to be prudent .. We did the stimulus and other things that put us in good stead compared with all others and we can afford to be more agressive in starting to get out of the debt spiral ..

I think the economy needs some targeted stimulus at present. The timing seems to be because of an unnecessary promise from the past and an approaching election. I can't see why it shouldn't be delayed a year or so. Economic reasons should be paramount. If he achieves it by the removal of silly middle class welfare inherited from the Howard Costello years - Seniors Health Card and tax free super pensions for the wealthy etc.- then I'd be happier.

I think the efforts/finances would be far better spent in re-organising the economy to have the replacement of power generation from fossil fuels to renewable sources. There is a great deal of new employment, redeployment of skills and new markets available in this.

This is the approach that will take the country through the next stage of the GFC, help to mitigate the on-rushing climatic catastrophe and stragically position this nation in a far stronger position, economically and otherwise.

I also think making the most vulnerable in society suffer in these austerity/cost cutting exercises is, not only self-defeating as a nation but, basically cruel. It seems to me there are plenty of under-taxed corporations/companies that are overdue on paying their way!

In a relative sense is $10 in my pocket after a big night out, a surplus?

Without an in-depth explanation on how our treasurer has manipulated figures to create the impression of sound fiscal management on a the surface level and on the kitchen tables that I've shared conversation on most view the CARBON TAX and just a way for the government to bail themselves out of hard times and over spending.

The majority of Australians don't want this tax, if they repelled it how would the figures look?

Oppose cutting expenditure on education and health