The pizza-loving Matthew Yglesias thinks my post yesterday characterizing the phrase "primary balance" as a communications ploy is too strong and that it has real meaning I shouldn't simply dismiss.

Economists and policy types may indeed recognize the concept of a primary balance (a balanced budget not including annual interest payments on the national debt) as valid and worthwhile as Matthew suggests.  As a policy/budget person, I have no problem with that.  Amen.

But when I'm wearing my public relations hat, and as Matthew admits, it's easy to see that the phrase has tremendous value from a communications/ political perspective. Instead of talking about a budget that has a $500 billion or so deficit, we are referring to a budget in some type of balance.  That changes the discussion from a negative to a positive for the vast majority of people who will hear or read about it.

I'm not suggesting that "primary balance" is the equivalent of "death taxes," that wonderful phrase that, as I've said before (here and here, for example), is as inaccurate as it is politically powerful. 

But it does make you realize that federal budget debates are often as much about the words and phrases being used as they are about fiscal policy.