PeterGutwein has arguably given his opponents more ammunition in his sixth Budget than any since his first, when the new Hodgman government took an axe to the public service.
This time the Liberals do not have the political capital they did in 2014 after sweeping aside the unpopular Labor-Green government and being in the fortuitous position of being able to blame their predecessors for the state of Tasmania's finances.
Now, Mr Gutwein has to take full responsibility for the decision to send the state into net debt, and with it the significant increase in borrowings. He seems fine with that, arguing "the important point is whether you can service the mortgage".
The Treasurer says the government decided to "stay the course and increase our investment into the infrastructure the state needs", meaning "the state will carry a manageable level of net debt".
It does not look good, however, for a government claiming to be responsible economic managers to be increasing borrowings from the estimated 2018-19 outcome of $671.2 million to $1.81 billion by 2022-23.
The forecast operating surplus of $57 million, meanwhile, will again be attacked as only having been made possible due to a raid on government business enterprises and state-owned companies.
In 2019-20, the Motor Accident Insurance Board and the Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation will be asked to pay special dividends of $50 million and $39.5 million respectively.
Both are in addition to the standard year-to-year dividends they - and other GBEs - pay.
Likely to be an ongoing cause of friction, meanwhile, is the demand in this Budget for government departments and agencies to find savings.
The Treasurer says the "efficiency dividend" required of the public service will be "modest", representing three quarters of one per cent of its total spending.
However, this totals $450 million in unallocated savings that must be achieved over the next four years, beginning with $50 million in the coming year.
We are entitled to be sceptical that these savings can be achieved without, as Mr Gutwein maintains, impacting on frontline services.
Conversely, not achieving such savings is identified by Treasury as one of the risks to the Budget outcome.
Treasury says "it will require committed action to identify and implement the savings measures".
And that's a big part of the problem - Mr Gutwein says the savings will come from "expenditure such as consultations, travel and advertising, as well as targeted vacancy control and natural employee attrition, without affecting essential services". In other words, jobs will go.
Worse, the Budget only provides for the government's previous public sector wages policy of two per cent pay rises and the Treasurer says any increases above this will also need to be funded through further savings.
Even what the government would claim to be the budget highlights - record spending in infrastructure, health and education - are open to criticism.
In the case of infrastructure, there are projects that have been pushed back, with their completion delayed and the funds, therefore, not flowing in the years previously stated.
Health spending - accounting for the largest piece of the expenditure pie - is particularly circumspect.
The allocation for 2019-20 of $1.95 billion is only $10.7 million more than what Treasury estimates the government will have actually spent this year, which is almost $145 million more than budgeted.
Health has a habit of blowing its budget year after year, and a reasonable argument could be made that to break this cycle its allocation for the next year should be based on what it spent in the previous one.
Still, in the face of criticism from the opposition parties, the Liberals can fall back on the tried and true response of: What's your alternative?
In this Budget, Mr Gutwein says the government has addressed "significant revenue downgrades (primarily due to lower than previously expected GST receipts), unprecedented demand for health services and the devastating summer wildfires", and has "made the difficult calls".
On Tuesday, Labor leader Rebecca White and then Greens leader Cassy O'Connor will have the opportunity to outline what calls they would have made differently.
Their responses should provide more context to help in judging this Budget.