On Wednesday the Minister for Finance will announce a tax bonanza of proportions not seen in this State since Fianna Fail in 1977 unwisely delivered on its election promises. Buoyant Government revenue gives Mr Quinn the opportunity, not just to hand out tax cuts but to deliver a radical Budget which could have a major impact on, for example, poverty levels, competitiveness and tax equity. Unfortunately, it looks as if he may let the opportunity pass.
To be fair to Mr Quinn, much of this year's Budget has been written for him by the three Coalition party leaders. Securing agreement on Partnership 2000 is of paramount importance to them and if it meant not just generous pledges on tax over the next three years but large pledges for 1997 then they had to be delivered. Trade union acceptance of the agreement will be encouraged by the huge tax reductions earmarked for this year. And perhaps it is only Coincidence that this frontloading won't be unhelpful to the Coalition parties at the general election.
The Exchequer figures released on Saturday confirm that Mr Quinn can deliver a soft Budget. Income tax cuts for all. No economic group will emerge worse off. Increases in indirect taxes will be minimal; the reason for this being that Mr Quinn's hands are tied. Membership of the single currency will require a low inflation rate and increases in excise duties push up inflation. Mr Quinn has little scope for excise duty increases anyway. The law of diminishing returns, cross Border trade and the increasing availability of contraband all see to that.
The Budget will be designed to appeal greatly to middle income earners, not because theirs is the most deserving case but because they make a point of voting and at the last election cast votes for the Labour Party like never before. The value of the tax giveaways will come to some £290 million in 1997 and £400 million in a full year; the sort of figures which Mr Quinn was anxious to rubbish earlier in order, presumably, to make eventual agreement on them a victory of consequence for the social partners - which it is.
The bad news is that the Budget may have as little to do with equity as most budgets before it. If so, it will be a lost opportunity; seldom does a Minister for Finance have the arithmetic looking so good. Neither, it seems, may competitiveness be prominent on the agenda. One of the best ways to reduce business costs is to cut employers' PRSI charges (which anyway are a tax on employment) but Mr Quinn is expected to withhold a reduction and will offer only a small increase in the threshold at which it is payable. Poverty is an issue which, in justice, cannot be sidelined in a year when so much is being shelled out. How far up does it get on Mr Quinn's list of priorities? We will know on Wednesday afternoon.
This third Budget from Mr Quinn offers him great opportunity and great temptation. He can impress his EU counterparts by keeping the deficit low or he can dump restraint and impress (some of) the voters. He can fine tune the Budget to introduce greater equity and help alleviate hardship or he can concentrate on the big picture of giveaways. If Mr Quinn fancies his place in the history books he ought to reflect, even at this late stage, on the balance of benefits in his Budget. If his distribution of largesse turns out to be unashamedly pitched for electoral advantage then it is to be hoped that Wednesday's Budget is the last he delivers, ever.