Having fluffed it first time out with a Budget that made no secret of rewarding the wealthy, the Minister for Finance yesterday devoted himself to mending fences with the less well off.
"Payback time" was put on hold as the Government addressed the broader political picture, in terms of the long-term needs of society, the short-term requirements of the economy and the looming local and European elections.
The Minister for Finance didn't find it easy to engage in a policy about-face. And sniping by Mr Michael Noonan, Mr Derek McDowell and Mr Pat Rabbitte didn't help. But Mr McCreevy put his head down and went for it.
The introduction of a tax credit system was the revolutionary cover under which the Minister made his move. It wasn't something voters had seriously considered. Not since Dr Garret FitzGerald and Fine Gael had first floated - and dropped - the idea more than a decade ago. The Progressive Democrats did mention it last time out and now it would be implemented under Fianna Fail.
A tax-free income threshold of £100 a week, with kind words from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), gave the Minister a fair wind. And the promise to remove 80,000 people from the tax net couldn't be anything but good news.
Mr McCreevy's shock and dismay over the public's reaction to last year's budget had been palpable. Sure, he had given most to the rich and to the upper-income groups. But those were the grounds on which Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats had fought and won the general election. So what was the problem?
Excessive payback was the problem. It was one thing to cut the top and marginal rates of income tax by 2 per cent, thereby shunting maximum benefits up the line, but it was quite another to unexpectedly reduce capital gains tax by a whopping 20 per cent. A £5 increase for old-age pensioners could not balance that particular equation.
Not that Mr McCreevy has any time for the "poverty industry" or for the strictures of the ICTU. But when IBEC, the largest employers' body in the State, started to sing off the same hymn-sheet, alarm bells rang in Fianna Fail.
The message was simple. The economy was in danger of overheating. And the only way to keep inflation at bay and the lid on wage demands was through income tax cuts for the lower paid.
A complicating factor was the need to create a climate for 1999 in which a new national wage agreement could be negotiated. The Government just had to put its tax-slashing proposals for the better-off on hold.
As far back as last June, Ms Mary Harney saw the writing on the wall and made a virtue of necessity. The Progressive Democrats, having championed increases in old age pensions, broadened its caring base by demanding that income tax cuts be aimed at the lower paid.
After that, a series of slow leaks from the coalition parties confirmed that yesterday would be a day of nurturing and sharing, when the requirements of the poor and the marginalised would be recognised. The commitment to social inclusion in Partnership 2000 would be given a fair shake.
The Taoiseach went so far during President Clinton's visit, last August, as to hold up the Irish partnership model as an example of constructive economic and social development to the United States.
Mr McCreevy may have embarked on a new fiscal adventure by introducing a tax credit system, but he still hankered after the simple, tax-cutting certainties of yesterday.
The Minister still intended to deliver "the tax proposals as agreed by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats." That would require new income tax rates of 20 and 40/42 per cent, with only one-fifth of workers paying at the higher rate. A cut in the PRSI burden was also included. So, once the tricky issues of a new partnership agreement and local elections had been got out of the way, would there be a slide back towards US style fiscal policies? Or would the tax credits scheme be developed?
Income tax changes would cost £581 million next year, according to the Minister, with a further £310 million being devoted to social welfare payments. By any measurement, they were significant figures.
And they were attacked by the opposition parties as being, in turn, both profligate and miserly. Mr Noonan concentrated his fire on the stimulatory impetus the Budget would give the economy as it enters a single European currency. The fear of an inflationary consumer boom could become a reality because the Minister had fuelled consumer demands, he warned.
In order to soak up some of this surplus cash, the Fine Gael spokesman suggested that shares in any State privatisation programme should be offered to the public and that the investment ceiling for private pension funds should be raised.
Nodding in the direction of Fine Gael's rural support, he found fault with the miserly response to the difficulties now being experienced by farm families.
Mr McDowell of Labour complained about the failure to lay a concrete basis for a more equitable society in future years. It was one thing to make claims about delivering benefits to low-income workers, he said, but the biggest losers in the Budget were the unemployed.
The unemployed were being treated as the undeserving poor and had been fobbed off with an increase of £3 a week. The Minister had ignored the need to invest in a more equitable society.
Grudging acceptance of the benefits of a tax credit system was accepted by the Labour spokesman, but he balanced that by criticising capital acquisition tax concessions as "an early Christmas present for the well off".
Mr Rabbitte of Democratic Left found the budget to be hopelessly slanted against the homeless and the marginalised. The poor and those struggling to exist in economic black spots had been neglected in favour of the builders and the wealthy. There wasn't, he declared, a penny extra put aside for health or housing while an additional 45,000 people had joined the public housing waiting list.
There is always one trip-wire in a Budget. Last year it was the cut in capital gains tax. This year it may be the decision to cut betting taxes at a cost of £24 million to the exchequer.
To somebody like Mr McCreevy, who enjoys a day at the races, it was probably a fun thing to do. He forgot traditional strictures against such behaviour to the extent that he boasted the cuts in the rates "will increase betting activity".
Mr Rabbitte acted the party pooper. Not content with pointing to the £24 million cost of these concessions in the "Bookies Budget", he compared it unfavourably with the additional £8 million devoted to hospital waiting lists, the £12 million for disabilities and other minor monies set aside for primary and adult education.
Mr John Gormley of the Green Party was scathing. This was a Budget for the contented, by the contented. It was an accountant's budget by an unreconstructed Thatcherite. It was all about business as usual. . .big business.
As with the other opposition speakers, there was grudging recognition of the benefits of a tax credit system. But Mr Gormley felt the marginalised and the poor had been disgracefully ignored. There was no vision of an inclusive, sustainable, well-educated and healthy society. Apart for that, the Minister's nod in favour of green, eco-taxes had been unconvincing.
In spite of bitter words from the Opposition, the smiles on the faces of Fianna Fail TDs said it all. This was a Budget that would run and run.