A quarrel has flared up between the government and political parties over the latter’s welfare-related campaign promises.

On Monday, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance announced it had launched a task force to study the feasibility of the welfare proposals presented by the ruling Saenuri Party and the main opposition Democratic United Party.

The schemes floated by the two parties included quadrupling the salaries of conscripted soldiers to about 400,000 won, free child care services for kids under the age of 5, free senior high school education, free school lunches, expanded coverage of the state-run health care insurance and halving college tuition.

The ministry said these pledges, if implemented as suggested, would cost the nation a staggering 340 trillion won ($302 billion) over the next five years, an amount that exceeds this year’s total government budget of 325.4 trillion won.

The ministry’s warning against what it sees as “populist” welfare plans, however, invited a fusillade of criticism from the two parties. They all said the government had no business vetting their campaign promises.

Slamming the ministry for its unjustified intervention, Kim Chong-in, a member of the ruling party’s emergency council, wondered why the ministry had remained silent about the so-called “747” pledge made by President Lee Myung-bak during the 2007 presidential campaign.

At the time Lee promised to boost annual growth to 7 percent, increase per capita income to $40,000 and make South Korea the world’s seventh-largest economy.

Describing the 747 pledge as a “far-fetched” promise, Kim asked why the ministry had not bothered to analyze its feasibility five years ago.

Opposition lawmakers also joined the chorus of criticism of the government. Rep. Lee Yong-sup, chief policymaker of the DUP, asserted that political parties were compelled to put forward welfare policies because the Lee administration had ruined the livelihoods of ordinary people.

The politicians’ arguments have some merit. Campaign promises express a political party’s will to implement certain policies. As such, they cannot be examined with the same standards as those applied to formulating the government’s budget.

Yet this does not mean that political parties can make welfare pledges as they please without any consideration about their potential impact on the national economy or taxpayers.

The ministry’s intention is to help voters discern good and sustainable programs from bad and ruinous ones. This job is necessary because political parties do not offer any explanation to voters regarding the cost of their programs and financing plans.

Hence, before denouncing the government for meddling in their business, political parties need to address growing concerns about welfare populism. Civic groups and the government are encouraged to evaluate their campaign promises.