The principal test for this budget was always whether it realistically laid the groundwork for a balanced budget in 2015-16.
The Conservatives have placed much of their economic and political credibility on the line based on their ability to deliver a balanced budget.
The current budget, like many of its predecessors, relies on controlling spending growth while hoping (perhaps praying) revenue increases enough to balance the budget.
Of course, it is risky, pinning your hopes on revenue increases.
The Conservatives anticipate that revenue will grow by 3.8% this year compared with 2.2% last year.
They are aiming for even stronger growth in the future: 5.9% in 2014-15 and 5.5% in 2015-16.
But their revenue forecasting record is poor.
The money they've actually collected in all but one budget since 2008 has been less than the amount expected – a difference of almost $5 billion, on average.
Planning for strong revenue growth assumes that the economy won't be jeopardized by events outside of Canada, particularly in the U.S.
A much safer approach would have been to reduce spending.
The Tories want to keep program-spending increases to a relatively parsimonious 0.8% and remain tight-fisted in the coming years.
They expect to loosen the purse strings just enough for program spending to increase 1.2% and 2.6% respectively in the next two years.
But they are haunted by memories of past stimulus spending.
Spending to encourage growth in the economy is rarely undone; such spending simply becomes the basis for future growth in outlays.
And that essentially happened in Canada where program spending did not return to its pre-stimulus levels.
This effect is not limited to Canadian governments.
Governments around the world that enacted stimulus programs in down times have gone on to keep spending high, basing increases on the new, higher levels.
However, had the federal government returned to its prior spending levels, the 2013-14 deficit would come in at about $3.1 billion rather than its expected $18.7 billion.
And deficits don't come in isolation: higher deficits become higher debt levels, and higher debts become a greater burden for the population to pay off in future years.
Something else the budget could have tackled more broadly was tax reform. When a nation reforms its tax system, it can improve economic growth by strengthening economic incentives.
Reducing or eliminating special privileges and loopholes in the tax code allow the government to reduce marginal personal income tax rates, which are still uncompetitive internationally and form an impediment to additional investment, work effort and entrepreneurship.
One example is the number of new tax credit programs the federal government has introduced since 2006.
They range from credits for children's fitness to employment to public transit and in and of themselves will cost an estimated $7.9 billion in 2012.
Reducing or eliminating them would have provided resources that could have been used to reduce marginal tax rates without affecting the overall deficit.
As it stands, the government has shown a willingness to close some loopholes, but the resulting revenue gains, an expected $4.4 billion over five years, will simply augment existing revenue.
In other words, the government is closing these loopholes to gain revenues.
There was little unexpected in last Thursday's status quo budget.
At its core, it calls for spending restraint but looks wistfully toward hoped-for revenue increases.
It would have been less precarious – and less of a debt burden for future taxpayers – had the government reduced program spending to bring it in line with revenue, thereby achieving a balanced budget sooner and with less risk.
