Rewritten Article:
This Year's Test for the Traffic Light Coalition
The Federal Constitutional Court has showcased the ideological divides within the traffic light coalition. The coming years represent a stern examination of this coalition.
Christian Lindner isn't a fan of the phrase "debt brake" or "emergency situation," and "suspension" is certainly not an option for a full-time player. Thus, the German Finance Minister pulled off a remarkable verbal maneuver during a press appearance, confessing to lifting the debt brake's constraints in 2023 due to the current emergency situation, yet not actually employing such verbiage. He concluded by expressing his desire to "clear the slate." The clean slate is indeed approaching, albeit for everyone.
The concept of "suspending the debt brake" always sounds enticing! Imagine that the debt brake possesses a giant switch, and when the government faces a bit of tightness, it simply flips it. The financial brakes lift off, the budget shoots towards the finish line, and spectators erupt in cheers and champagne showers. However, "suspending the debt brake" is, at best, a linguistic inaccuracy, and at worst, a form of manipulation.
"Only for use in natural disasters!"
Introduced in response to the global financial crisis, the debt brake is a rigid, constitutional limit on new borrowing, outlined in Article 115 of the Basic Law. Contrary to the Greens' assertions, it's far from an antiquated relic; it's a response to crisis. The debt brake cannot be suspended unless an explicit amendment to this effect is written into the same clause, which has happened only once – for the "turnaround" billions allocated to the Bundeswehr, thanks to the votes of the CDU/CSU and the Green Party.
Lindner's announcement signifies something else: a small, little-known loophole exists within the debt brake. The entrance reads "Hands off!" and "Only open in the event of a natural disaster!" or in the instance of "extraordinary emergency situations beyond state control." The finance minister intends to persuade parliament to pass the 2023 budget through this loophole.
There is no switch, no suspension; only challenges, necessities, and anxious hopes that constitution will hold up under pressure. If a suitable emergency situation cannot be identified, this week's debacle will repeat itself: the Federal Constitutional Court will slam the door shut, and the next budget will also face rejection. CDU/CSU's parliamentary manager, Thorsten Frei, publicly labeled this potential maneuver as risky.
Another financial time bomb awaits
Seventy billion from the Climate and Transformation Fund (CTF) is presently missing due to its reallocation to combat COVID-19. Up to 200 billion more can be added, considering another fund, the Economic Stabilization Fund (WSF), exists outside the budget. Experts continue to debate the exact amount. What qualifies as an emergency in such cases?
The specter of the Federal Constitutional Court looms large once more. Its decision to invalidate the government's decision in 2021 to reallocate €60 billion, initially intended for COVID-19 relief, to the CTF, has cast a shadow over budget policy. Its argument that each emergency must be temporal – a situation not constantly imminent – could further complicate the government's efforts to employ the suspense clause.
The coalition partners' ideological differences
The suspension of the debt brake has brought such divergences to light. The SPD favors reducing inequalities, the Greens promote sustainability, and the FDP supports a lean state. Fundraising efforts remain complicated when these three perspectives must agree on fiscal policies, particularly regarding higher taxes and climate subsidies. The Green Party chancellor is used to telling compelling stories but can be sensitive. The CDU/CSU has no interest in forming new alliances, either.
Is the end for the traffic light coalition?
Some critics forecast the FDP as the coalition's riskiest constituent. The party is currently grappling with internal discontent over its commitment to the partnership. The party cannot waver; opposing the debt brake or imposing higher taxes would be detrimental, considering its leader's culpability in the budget debacle.
The traffic light coalition is now boondoggled between inescapable compromises and the brink of self-destruction. The upcoming election may catalyze these divisions, potentially lending an opportunity to lesser parties such as Friedrich Merz and the CDU/CSU.
In essence, the German government, led by Olaf Scholz and Green Party chair Robert Habeck, confronts an unresolved budget policy battle and concerns over its ability to manage the nation's finances.
Sources: and
Enrichment Insights:
- Debt Brake: Originally introduced in response to the global financial crisis, the debt brake restricts the federal government's deficit to 0.35% of GDP and prevents states from incurring new net debt for a period of six consecutive years.
- Suspension of Debt Brake: In 2020, Germany suspended the rule during the pandemic crisis to allow additional debt to support the econome. However, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 2023 that such a decision required a constitutional amendment.
- Ideological Differences: The SPD upholds redistribution, the Greens promote subsidies, and the FDP is proponents of a lean state. Differences in taxation, climate policy, and deficit spending remain substantial challenges for the three-party coalition.
- Federal Constitutional Court – Role in Debate: The court's 2023 ruling further complicated the ongoing debate regarding the debt brake. Critics argue that the court must balance its role in upholding constitutional principles with enabling the government to respond effectively to crisis situations.
