It’s clear that if we want to address inflation head on, governments are going to have to bring down their spending.

But the problem is – spending is their favourite thing to do.

RBA Governor Michelle Bullock told Senate Estimates this week that increased public spending could push interest rates higher.

“All other things equal, if there are less savings in the economy – and that includes by the government as well as private sector – and at the same time investment doesn’t come down, then that would put upward pressure on the neutral rate,” she said.

Way to kill the vibe, Governor.

Because telling politicians to cut back on spending is like telling Quentin Tarantino to tone down the violence – what else are they there to do?

Like all behavioural corrections, it’s not enough to just tell governments not to spend so much and move on, assuming the job is done.  

We need to understand the psychology behind the behaviour, and address it at its cause.

Picture a politician.

This is a highly ambitious person that most likely spent their formative years on the social sidelines at school.

Now, every three or four years they get to compete with other politicians to be the most popular person in an electorate, and their weapons are promises they can make to voters.

The higher up within their party they go, the grander – and more alluring – those promises can become.

And the best part of these promises is that politicians are not committing their own money.

They can use the big pool of taxpayer dollars.

There’s a thought exercise in ‘Free To Choose’ by Milton and Rose Friedman about behaviour towards spending.

If you are spending your own money on yourself, you’re going to try your hardest to find the most value you can for the money spent.

Spending your money on someone else, you’re still bound to find maximum value – it’s your money after all – but you still do want some level of satisfaction for the other person.

But spending other people’s money on yourself, or other people’s money on other people?

Start the party!

And that’s where we find ourselves.

Look at the culture within Parliament when it comes to spending other people’s money.

Sure, there are more expensive projects – but since she’s in the news, how about Anika Wells?

She has charged taxpayers almost $100,000 for a three-day trip to New York.

Her airfares cost $34,427, her Deputy Chief of Staff’s flights cost $38,166, and an Assistant Secretary for Online Safety ran up $22,236.31 as well.

Then throw in another $20,000 for accommodation.

Wells has defended herself by saying the trip was “incredibly important”, but that’s not the point.

How hard did she make her staff look around to find savings on those numbers?

Anyone in the world would think $100,000 is getting up there, so was there a big attempt to mitigate costs, or was it decided it’s just easier to splash out?

If Wells is emblematic of the culture in Canberra, then it is going to be a long, long time before governments fall out of love with public spending.

But it’s not just governments.

We’re on notice too.

We all hate the government spending our money, until that money is spent on us.

Remember, the politician is competing to be the most popular.

Us voters decide who the winner is.

The politician wouldn’t promise to spend more money if it didn’t work.

The Victorian government finally rolled back the curtain on its long, long, long awaited metro tunnel this week.

Have you noticed how the opposition’s attack lines have gone from hammering the government on the cost, to running completely silent on it?

That’s because voters don’t care about the cost anymore.

Before the metro, the plan was a black hole into which all of their hardworking taxpayer dollars disappeared.

Now that it’s here, it’s a vital part of Melbourne’s infrastructure, and the only people complaining about the cost are boring killjoy haters.

I’m not lecturing from a pulpit – I’m just as bad as everyone else.

Not once on Sydney’s Metro have I ever been inspired to Google the final price tag for the project, because I’m content sitting there thinking “Central to North Sydney in 10 minutes is unbelievable”.

So why would politicians stop rolling out the chequebook knowing that the public deep down actually loves big flashy projects, and doesn’t worry that much about costs when they eventually get to play with their fancy new toys?

This is the task ahead of Michelle Bullock.

To say to a Senate Estimates committee that there is a link between public spending and Australia’s inflation problem is a start.

But Russia can’t be conquered in the Winter just by moving troops over the border.

Our entire political class must rethink their relationship with other people’s money and put Australia’s long-term future ahead of their party’s short term goals.

And the Australian public will have to wise up to the political class’ big spend projects and threaten to punish the free-spending parties at the ballot box.

Then we might get somewhere.

James Bolt is a SkyNews.com.au contributor