So Stephen Toplis now lines up with Cameron Bagrie, the government are going to miss their debt target.

Toplis is the BNZ's Head of Research and he is seeing what more and more of us are seeing, and what many predicted.

You can't do what the Labour government promised and still pretend you haven't spent all the pocket money.

Toplis isn't making a specific prediction but he's joining some dots.

Look at what the government has spent, look at what the economy is doing, look at the expectation around spending that they have created, and before you know it you have blown the budget and your promises around debt are out the window.

To look credible Grant Robertson bent over backwards promising this government would hold tight to their debt ratio claims.

In other words, they were holding to 20 percent of GDP, which is a number widely accepted as being the result of a prudent, sensible government in control of the levers of spending.

This was the target the previous government had, Labour's only adjustment being it would take them a couple of years longer.

So in essence they argued, all they were going to do was take the money already allocated by the previous government, spent it in different areas, take a couple of years longer on debt, and you would barely notice the difference between the Labour and National outlook.

Sadly some people fell for that.

In the ensuing nine months, there has been the near billion dollars for the Pacific, the billions for the regional fund, the hundred plus working groups, the pay rises for health and schools and so it's gone, as the hands have gone out, the cash has been flying.

And as it's flown, more and more people with calculators have seen this for what it is.

A con.

As Steven Joyce said, you can't make the sort of promises they did without leaving yourself very, very short of reserves.

Add to that the chances of an economy slowing, and with it the fall in tax take, and all of a sudden the projections are out.

The combination of more money out, with less money in, is a recipe for disaster.

People like the unions argue, no problem, simply extend your debt target. 20 percent is low, we can afford for it to blow out a bit.

But to what? 25? 30? 50? 80? How much debt do you want?

The people who argue this line are economic illiterates, and dangerous.

In a world that’s shaped the way it is right now, the less you owe the better.

The test here is Robertson's nerve, he's blown the budget.

There is no question there is a hole. Cameron Bagrie and Stephen Toplis see it, and they’ll be joined by others.

And the question is does he rein it in? Or break a promise and keep the spendthrifts happy, and with it imperil us and blow his credibility?