KEY POINTS:
Timid. Puny. Inadequate. Underwhelming. Labour has wheeled out so many negatives to slam the Government's $500 million infrastructure package that the adjectives threaten to outnumber the jobs National's initiatives are designed to save.
That is an exaggeration, of course. But the long list of fast-tracked Government-funded building projects unveiled by the Prime Minister yesterday only highlighted the grim reality of just how much - or to be more exact - how little the Government can effectively do to ease the pain of deepening recession.
The $500 million worth of capital spending on doing up state houses, constructing new roads and bridges, building new classrooms and so forth sounds impressive but will directly create (or save) only around 2000 jobs.
Put that figure against the 68,000 the Treasury expects to join the dole queues by March next year and yesterday's package is a drop in the reservoir.
The Government , of course, is stressing the extra spending will have an economic multiplier effect within the construction sector which will help protect other jobs. It is stressing there is a lot more infrastructure spending - some $5 billion in total - yet to come.
It is stressing that the "fiscal stimulus" provided by tax cuts will save the economy from bottoming out completely.
However, at the end of the day, it is those stark figures of 2000 jobs saved as against 68,000 forecast to go which stand out like neon, even without Labour pointing them out.
To its credit, the Government did not try to hide this. In fact, it is in its interests to be open and honest about the budgetary constraints within which it is operating.
Bill English is seeking to lower public expectations of what the Government can do by repeating the line that the Government will take the "sharp edges" off the recession.
In other words, don't count on it being able to do more.
It is a tricky message to sell, made more difficult when comparisons are made with other countries which are pump-priming their economies like there is no tomorrow.
To counter those comparisons, English is emphasising that New Zealand went into recession a year earlier than other economies. The result was that Labour spent big and cut taxes so much that "by now, when the recession is deepening, the New Zealand Government unfortunately has a lot fewer options than those Governments".
English is also warning there has to be a tomorrow - one which requires the bill be paid for trying to stave off recession today. Otherwise, New Zealand will get a credit-rating downgrade which will force up the cost of capital and stop the investment necessary to get the economy pumping again.
For the first time, he is warning that debt levels could rise to worst-case scenario levels of 50 to 60 per cent of gross domestic product.
With the screws tightening even further, English is warning that getting debt down will be a huge challenge to the Government and - referring to Labour - a "challenge to Parliament".
It is a challenge Labour is not yet ready to pick up.
David Cunliffe, Labour's finance spokesman, acknowledged in Parliament that a judgment had to be made about "stretching" the Government's balance sheet to protect jobs, and that the borrowing had to be repaid one day to stabilise New Zealand's debt levels.
But Labour believes English's defensiveness is evidence National is starting to lose the debate on how best to respond to the internationally generated economic crisis. So Labour is on the attack, saying the public deserved something far bolder than yesterday's "tinkering".
