LACKING money, economic credibility and time, Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard have constructed a political budget designed to maximise pressure on Tony Abbott before the election and lock the Opposition Leader into an ALP agenda even after September 14 if he wins. Labor has sought to force Abbott into a series of short-term, pre-election decisions that are either impossible or difficult for him to make without damaging his credibility, losing support among voters or facing more serious revolts in his ranks. From a position of extreme economic and political weakness, the Treasurer and Prime Minister have reached out to draw Abbott into their vortex of spending cuts and long-term promises, with the advantage that the real costs of Labor's promises don't take full effect for years. Indeed, such is the formulation of Swan's sixth budget that many of the toughest decisions - much tougher than those made last night - won't really be made until 2016 when Abbott, if he wins the next election, will be facing his own first election and trying to convince his supporters he has delivered a Coalition agenda after six years of Labor. The key to Labor's immediate political trap and longer-term timebomb for Abbott is the tying of cost-cutting to specific programs. Abbott has always been supportive of the national disability insurance scheme, now called DisabilityCare, and has indicated his overall support for the extra Medicare levy to pay for disability insurance. With deft political footwork, he neutralised the government's political advantage on DisabilityCare and challenged Gillard to legislate the funding levy and not leave it until after the election. In a riposte, Labor has tried to impose its agenda on Abbott in the short term and entrench its legacy in the future. Labor wants Abbott to implement its agenda - if it loses the election - using its revenue measures, mostly derived from policies and programs Abbott opposes or will have difficulty supporting. This is the same for the education reforms and DisabilityCare, more so for the latter. The alternative for Abbott is to oppose positive agendas he supports or propose his own more difficult cuts to fund Labor's programs. The Gonski school education reforms, where spending doesn't really take off until 2018-19 and then quickly jumps to parity with Labor's proposed "savings" in 2020, is funded to a great extent over the next four years by "family payments reforms" - the removal of the Howard-era $5000 Baby Bonus, which opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey would like to see dumped but many Coalition MPs are convinced must stay. Does Abbott accept the "easiest cuts of all " - that is, Labor's cuts - and face an adverse reaction from Coalition supporters and MPs or does he defend the Baby Bonus and propose his own cuts? Labor's desperate and only choice is to put the pressure on Abbott and force him to jettison DisabilityCare (not likely), defer the Gonski education reforms or establish his own swath of spending cuts. The fallback option is that Abbott, even if he wins the election, will have to ensure Labor's legacy and deliver what they couldn't. His response to the budget will be critical for his own credibility and the Coalition's discipline.