In last Saturday's Irish Times, Tony Gregory questioned some of the points made in this column three weeks ago on the distorting impact of local pressures on public resources. He was concerned at my reference to the deal he negotiated with Charles Haughey prior to the formation of a government in March 1982.
I opined that I had erred in 1982 by seeking to compete with Charles Haughey in offering such a deal to Tony Gregory, but made it clear I was concerned with the local elements of what had been sought by, and offered to, him.
Although his constituency - Dublin Central - certainly had a better claim than others to additional State aid, the concessions he won seemed to have provided an unfortunate precedent for the kind of local deals that have been done more recently by the present Government with four Independent TDs.
However, Tony Gregory has pointed out that he had initially sought a legitimate policy platform with other left-wing deputies, and that even when that platform failed to mature his subsequent personal platform was not confined to matters affecting his constituency, but included policies of general application.
That is true - and no one can doubt Tony Gregory's commitment to social justice at the national as well as the local level. And he can legitimately claim credit for some important social developments.
But the fact remains that about half of the 30 commitments sought and secured by him from Charles Haughey, and published on the day Charles Haughey was elected Taoiseach, included matters relating specifically to the north Dublin inner-city area. It is that precedent I was addressing in my article
Tony Gregory went on to cite Prof Joe Lee's Ireland 1918-1985 as authority for the proposition that the January 1982 budget was defeated because "Independents on whose support the government had been able to rely voted against a politically inept imposition of VAT on children's clothing and footwear".
That budget story is an enduring myth of Irish politics, in respect of which Joe Lee, surprisingly, ignored all the evidence.
It was designed to reduce the huge budget deficit left by Fianna Fail - a process which had been started in the emergency budget introduced in July 1981, three weeks after the change of government. But it was also a budget of social reform.
First, social welfare payments, already boosted by a 5 per cent supplementary increase in our July 1981 budget, were increased by a further 25 per cent. Over the following 12 months beneficiaries received an overdue increase of 8 per cent in their purchasing power - at a time when almost all other incomes were falling in real terms.
The substitution of big increases in children's allowances for part of the child allowance in the income tax code (a relief which had been benefiting disproportionately the after-tax incomes of higher income taxpayers) raised the amount of child-related payments received by less-well-off families by at least 25 per cent, and in the majority of cases by 50 per cent or more.
Steps were also taken in that budget to improve tax treatment of widows, widowers and single parents. Finally, as a step towards replacing tax allowances by much more equitable tax credits, spouses were to be given the right to apply for a £500 tax credit, which in the case of less-well-off families would have involved an additional payment to them by the State.
This had to paid for. But both I and my Fine Gael and Labour colleagues believed that the two socialist deputies, Noel Browne and Jim Kemmy, upon whom our Dail majority depended, would be likely to support what would be the most radical and socially progressive - as well as the toughest - budget in the history of the State.
Prior to the budget I met them to hear their views - without, of course, being able to tell them of our plans. Shortly after that meeting Jim Kemmy issued a statement summing up his - and I believed also Noel Browne's - concerns.
He said he would support the budget only in the event of "the continuation of food subsidies". And in relation to VAT, "as a general principle", he would oppose "any major shift from direct to indirect taxation: in particular there should be no increase in the lower rate of VAT."
The trouble was that if we didn't touch either food subsidies or VAT, we would be £115 million short of the sums needed for our ambitious social reform and redistribution policies. However, we had found that we could raise the greater part of this required £115 million by two measures.
First, action on food subsidies could be confined to a reduction in the butter subsidy and the substitution of the general milk subsidy by an EU-financed improved school-milk subsidy: this would protect the interests of children. All other food subsidies were left untouched.
The second measure involved no increase in the lower VAT rate, but did extend VAT to clothing and footwear. The social measures in the budget much more than compensated the less-well-off for any impact these two changes would have on their standard of living.
After the budget speech I met Jim Kemmy and Noel Browne, as well as a third non-socialist independent, Sean Loftus, to hear their reactions. Noel Browne clearly understood the social thrust of the budget and said he would support it. an Mr Loftus said little or nothing, giving no indication of dissatisfaction.
However, after the budget he told the media he had been upset because we had not felt able to accept a curious suggestion of his that we seek Fianna Fail support for the budget on the basis that we would modify its provisions a few months later.
Jim Kemmy, however, was clearly unhappy. Unlike Noel Browne, he did not seem to appreciate the extent to which this was a redistributive budget. In particular, he rejected any reduction whatever in food subsidies.
But the issue of VAT on clothing and footwear was not raised by him, either in this discussion or in the immediate post-budget statement he made to the media after its defeat. Indeed, before the vote on the budget, the issue of VAT on clothing and footwear had not emerged as an issue, receiving only a brief mention by Martin O'Donoghue in his post-budget Dail speech.
The budget was defeated because, while Noel Browne supported it, Jim Kemmy and Mr Loftus voted against.
If the issue that concerned Jim Kemmy was the modification of the food subsidies, where did the legend about the Budget falling on the issue of children's shoes originate? I am afraid that my own post-budget actions were to blame for the emergence of this myth.
I was moved to reveal the Department of Finance had argued that because some women had smaller feet than some children such a distinction should not be made. This argument had tickled my fancy during the pre-budget cabinet discussions, and had stuck in my mind.
It also stuck in the minds of the media. My attempt to lighten the occasion had instantly transformed our budget defeat from an issue of food subsidies into one about children's shoes. And, unsurprisingly, Jim Kemmy saw no reason, subsequently, to correct this misinterpretation .
Thus are myths created. And, once created, they seem to endure forever.
gfitzgerald@irish-times.ie