EVERYBODY was expecting an election Budget. And they got one. Ruairi Quinn used the Dail like the back of a campaign lorry to declaim the benefits of the Rainbow Coalition and its achievements over the past two years.
The Minister for Finance was so gripped by election it is he relegated details of his new Budget to second place while he itemised the gains made by the Government since 1994. It was an impressive record of growth. The kind of record you could go to the country on.
Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left had, Mr Quinn said, confounded those commentators who maintained that social progress and fiscal responsibility could not be achieved at the same time.
They had "made spectacular progress in developing the economy and combating social inequality, while successfully managing the nation's finances".
Net employment had grown by more than 100,000 and unemployment had fallen by 31,000, Mr Quinn chanted. GNP had expanded by 14 per cent and investment by 20 per cent; child benefit had increased by 35-40 per cent; an extra 3,000 people were working in health and education; exports had risen by 25 per cent, consumer spending by 10 per cent and inflation was running at about 2 per cent.
When he drew breath, it was to promise more of the same. If you believed him, boom and bloom was here to stay. Growth would continue well above the European average this year, at 5.5 per cent; the number at work would rise by 45,000; exports by 12 per cent and inflation, even after increases in fuel and tobacco, would stay at 2.2 per cent.
On top of that, Mr Quinn promised the biggest tax reduction package in the history of the State, at £490 million in a full year. And he increased social welfare payments by 4 per cent.
By that time, the Minister was dealing with the best leaked Budget details the State has seen. Framed in accordance with the terms of the Partnership 2000 deal which was negotiated with employers, trade unions, farmers and the unemployed before Christmas, the detail contained no surprises in tax and social welfare changes.
But there were some extra goodies in health, education and social welfare. The money devoted to shortening hospital waiting lists was designed to protect against an election backlash. And the concerns of the financial markets were addressed by planning for a current Budget surplus.
On unemployment, no miracles were promised. Seasonally adjusted, the controversial Live Register figure was expected to fall to 265,000. Last year, the predicted figure was 22,0 90 higher.
It was all so positive that Dick Spring rushed out a special Budget leaflet with the heading "1997 - It's going to be a great year". In it, he extolled the "magnificent job" Mr Quinn was doing as the first Labour Party Minister for Finance and looked forward to the election.
Fine Gael was pleased. Ministers were cock a hoop at being purveyors of good news - for a change. And Richard Bruton said the package would underpin growth and give the benefits back to workers and employers. It had been a cross party effort to produce a balanced and caring Budget. Echoes of a Just Society.
The same message of social solidarity was hammered out by Proinsias De Rossa when he outlined changes in the social welfare area. The Budget was "pro work, profamily and protective of older people", said the Democratic Left leader. Then he took a dig at Fianna Fail by declaring it reversed the "Dirty Dozen" social welfare cuts introduced by that party.
Charlie McCreevy had a thankless task. Fianna Fail's spokesman on finance was given the job of attacking a Budget which was based almost exclusively on Partnership 2000, without upsetting the social partners. The economic/social deal had already been welcomed by his party. And there was no political future in antagonising powerful vested interests in an election year.
He waffled. At great length. Mr McCreevy spoke of opportunities missed, without identifying them Never had a Minister for Finance enjoyed such a favourable situation and never had anyone failed so spectacularly. . . the Budget resembled a camel - a horse designed by a committee... the broad strategy is wrong, misguided, dangerous... there is no economic strategy underlying the Budget."
The closest Mr McCreevy got to specifics was when he accused the Government of increasing public spending at an unacceptable rate and spoke of "credit growing at an alarming rate". But he didn't call for a reduction in public spending on pay. Not with the party firmly committed to supporting the nurses in their pay claim.
Michael McDowell was taking no prisoners. The Progressive Democrats Party was quite clear about public spending: there was too much of it. He hit the Government where it hurt, attacking it over its commitments and in its record. It had promised to limit public spending increases to 2 per cent on real terms in 1996 and 1997. And it had failed to keep its word.
Mr Quinn, he said, was proposing to breach that undertaking by 5 per cent in this Budget and there appeared to be "an insatiable appetite for public spending within the Government". If the Government had kept its promises, it could have delivered a pro enterprise and pro jobs regime, he said.
Entering into the election spirit, Mr McDowell dismissed the Budget as a puny effort. Instead of being "a great giveaway", it was "a great damp squib". And, he predicted, the electorate would not be bought so cheaply. Rather than a winning Budget, it would be seen as "the longest redundancy application form ever written by a Minister for Finance".
The election campaign is well and truly under way.