The Catholic Central Committee (ZdK) in Germany has issued a strong caution against addressing budget issues with cuts in the social sector. ZdK President Irme Stetter-Karp voiced this opposition at the organization's autumn plenary meeting in Berlin, urging a rejection of proposals to overlook key social policies like basic child protection.
Questionable tactics, like discarding fundamental child protection or higher citizen's income, have been suggested by certain politicians to bridge budget gaps, according to Stetter-Karp. Following a recent budget ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, the German government now grapples with a gaping 60-billion-euro deficit, making such suggestions increasingly tempting.
These proposals spurred Stetter-Karp to demand a larger societal agreement on financing dependable state projects. This discussion includes reconsidering the debt brake and the fair imposition of taxes, as well as limiting extravagant subsidies. Stetter-Karp further emphasized the importance of preserving a compassionate tax system and responsible funding for sustainable initiatives.
The court ruling in question, delivered by the Karlsruhe judges, deemed the allocation of approved coronavirus loans to climate protection and economic modernization, now unconstitutional. The verdict also prohibited the state from reserving emergency loans for use in later years.
Amid the fiscal crisis, state expenditures beyond the social sector are open to reevaluation. In the midst of critical financial adjustments, however, the Church, much like well-established households, supports the preservation of social welfare services.
The religious institution's reasoning can be rooted in Catholic social teaching, which emphasizes protecting vulnerable groups, upholding social justice, and advocating for fair economic practices. Prioritizing the well-being of the less fortunate, fostering community and family life, and promoting equality are fundamental principles in the document "Quadragesimo anno."
Should budget adjustments rankle social welfare and exacerbate economic disparities, the Catholic institution may likely vehemently oppose such measures. Alternatively, the Central Committee might advocate for redistributive policies, increased investments in social services, or sustainable economic practices.
Footnotes:
