At least now, following the Treasury's pre-election outline of the nation's financial situation, the National Party has an independent assessment to justify the severe limitations of its "economic plan" and the further measures that will surely be necessary should it have the opportunity to announce its first budget next year.
What might have been will be a pointless exercise if Labour and National's other opponents try to make it so during the campaign, for neither of the major parties contemplating office is other than risk averse at the prospects.
Despite the gloomy forecasts, Labour decided to proceed with its tax cuts (and some are now wondering whether it should not have abandoned them in the better interests of the economy) so National, having been trapped into matching or bettering that particular carrot, has added a few dollars as a kind of clip-on to keep faith with the impatient.
It is hardly a bold recipe.
John Key's announcement pitched National's tax plan directly at middle New Zealand - territory occupied by Labour since 1999 - and higher income earners who thought they might get a solid sweetener or two have found themselves thrown a rather small bone, only $15 a week more than Labour's and the prospect of lower top tax rates.
But they would not vote Labour, so National has little electoral risk there.
Sensibly, the plan does only minimally reward those already receiving some form of government assistance, particularly Working for Families, who are earning $50,000 or less a year - average wage-earners, for example, will get $36 a week, $4 a week more than from Labour.
National will restore a tax rebate to middle-income earners who are single or who do not have children and who were not included in the Working for Families scheme, which is likely to be a popular, if entirely unjustified, measure.
The party has also decided to remain committed to improving national superannuation to 66% of the average wage.
It was anticipated that National would be able to pay for these measures only by reducing costs elsewhere, since it promised not to borrow for them, and its proposed changes to KiwiSaver, especially dropping the tax credit for employers, will provide about $3 billion.
A National government would operate a 2 plus 2 scheme, subsidising an equivalent amount of 2% of employees' contributions, but the subsidy would not rise to 4%.
That decision will be widely criticised as being a disincentive, but the grounds for a government to subsidise personal savings, especially in a scheme which has proved so popular, are weak indeed.
But National would also discard the research and development subsidy available to businesses.
This is far more difficult to justify.
If, in fact, firms have been misusing the scheme, better to have imposed more stringent rules than to have abandoned it altogether.
The economic plan would also save money by lengthening the time frame for borrowing for infrastructure, and the cancellation of the uncommitted expansion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The party looks certain to impose stringent reductions in the health bureaucracy and require a halt to the growth in the public service that has occurred under Labour, and is also likely to improve revenues by changing the emissions trading scheme.
Although Mr Key and his colleagues will argue vigorously that their economic plan is greatly different from Labour policy, it is unlikely voters will make such a distinction once they work out what it means for their pockets.
That would not have been the case had Mr Key been able, as he said he had hoped, to "more aggressively" lower the top personal tax rates to 33% and increase middle income tax cuts.
But the complaints have been loud and Labour is making a meal of the plan's limitations.
Voters should consider, however, why after 10 years of favourable global economic conditions the country now faces "an ocean of red ink 10 years into the future", as Mr Key says.
The answer is, of course, twofold but interlinked: the Clark Government decided to spend very large sums on subsidising wages and savings, increasing the bureaucracy and "future-proofing" superannuation, at the same time as a great many wage and salary earners went on a debt-fuelled spending spree.
Many will agree with Mr Key that economic recovery must be built on stronger fundamentals, such as improved productivity and a better environment for investment in jobs and growth, but can he and National part the sea of red ink and lead us to the promised land with this plan? It has a sense of confidence and responsibility about it, and some of the hard decisions that must be made have not been dodged, a rare approach before an election.
But there is much more it could do to improve the state of the books by removing or reducing the Clark Government's extraordinary and costly range of benefits for the relatively comfortable and employed.
Mr Key and his colleagues need reminding that the Government's books have until this year produced surpluses continuously since 1994, when National was in power - and after the Bolger government had taken seriously the need to reduce spending.
