Some political commentators warned of the risk to the federal government's budget when the surplus promise was dropped.
They warned that demands on the public purse (read taxpayer) would emerge.
John Passant (Jan 7) and others who oppose tightening access to welfare payments and/or raising expectations of those in receipt of benefits seem not to understand the notion of "moral hazard".
Similarly, in referring to the $728 million saved from Labor's budget, they fail to understand that taxpayers (including low-paid taxpayers) would eventually have had to foot the bill.
If there was an easy way to distinguish between income support recipients who are genuinely using the system as intended - as a temporary safety net - and those who seem to have developed a long-term or even inter-generational dependence, the government might not have needed to rely on such blunt measures.
If John Passant seriously believes that further redistribution and/or taxpayer funded government job creation programs are the solution, then a quick visit to Spain, Greece or Portugal might be in order.