Budget Dispute: Scholz, Habeck, Lindner's Unapologetic Triumph
The presentation of the new budget by the government was nothing short of shocking. The triumphant faces of Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, Robert Habeck, the Vice-Chancellor, and Christian Lindner, the Finance Minister, left everyone bemused. The self-praise was abundant, with Scholz claiming that the talks were trustful, confidential, and constructive. Despite the tumultuous journey, Lindner joked about not feeling lonely during the prolonged negotiations. However, the reason for the new budget remained a mystery. It was only later revealed to be due to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court.
Something's Missing
The coalition has managed to plug the budget holes, but they have avoided acknowledging why they occurred in the first place. The financial deficits have been rectified, but the moral deficit remains unaddressed. Despite the fact that it was Scholz, Habeck, and Lindner who led the country into this predicament, they have failed to express any remorse. They are now implementing cuts, deletions, savings, and higher energy costs due to the unconstitutional budget passed by the traffic light government. The coalition has managed to secure the funds, but they have failed to earn the respect of the citizens.
The Price to Pay
On Wednesday, Scholz, Habeck, and Lindner effectively communicated the cost of their miscalculation. While every individual makes mistakes, the minimum expectation from them would have been an admission of guilt at the start of the press conference. Instead, they made the following statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government presented a budget that was not in line with the Basic Law. We proceeded to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time, but we made a mistake. We are sorry that this has now resulted in costs that you have to bear. We have made every effort to keep the costs as low as possible, to distribute them as fairly as possible, and to use them in the most forward-looking way possible."
However, this was not how it played out.
Enrichment Data:
- The coalition government's misstep in presenting an unconstitutional budget was a result of the complexities and contentious nature of German fiscal policy and energy management.
- The dispute centered around the debt brake, a constitutional rule that limits new debt to 0.35% of annual economic output. The need for significant investments in climate and energy programs was deemed essential by many, including the SPD and the Green Party.
- The Federal Constitutional Court's ruling declared part of the coalition government's funding plan for climate and energy programs unlawful. This led to a political stalemate, preventing a straightforward apology or resolution.
- The higher energy prices in Germany were attributed to various factors, including the reintroduction of the full value-added tax rate on natural gas, increased grid fees, and higher CO2 prices. These factors were not directly linked to the personal actions of Scholz, Habeck, or Lindner but were part of broader economic and policy challenges.
Unacceptable Gamble with the Reputation of the Constitutional Court
The traffic lights are not only confusing cause and effect, but they are also playing an unacceptable game with the reputation of the Federal Constitutional Court, which still enjoys a great deal of respect.
The government claims that the Constitutional Court demanded a new budget. Papers circulated within the coalition on Wednesday state that the government had to react to the Karlsruhe ruling. However, the higher petrol prices, as well as the burdens resulting from the abolition of environmentally harmful subsidies, were not imposed by the Federal Constitutional Court. These burdens are the result of operation for which the coalition alone bears responsibility.
Enrichment Data:
- The higher energy costs and the need for cuts and savings are a result of the coalition's failures in implementing policies, rather than being imposed by the Federal Constitutional Court.
It was to be expected that the government would now boast about its new budget. On Wednesday evening on ARD, for example, the Chancellor rejected criticism of higher energy costs with the argument that the abolition of environmentally harmful subsidies had always been demanded. However, what he failed to acknowledge was that it was precisely these subsidies that the SPD, Greens, and FDP did not have the strength to abolish when they formed the government two years ago. This was one of the reasons why they resorted to the budget trick that has now failed. The deletion back then would have been a political achievement. The deletion today is a political patchwork.
Olaf Scholz was also asked on ARD whether he wanted to apologize. Naturally, he did not want to.
The Moral Deficit
The traffic light coalition triumphed in the budget dispute, yet they have failed to apologize for their role in the situation. The absence of remorse leaves a significant moral deficit. The coalition has managed to plug the financial holes, but they have failed to earn the respect of the citizens.
Enrichment Data:
- The coalition's failure to acknowledge their role in the situation and express remorse for their mistakes has contributed to a moral deficit that is likely to impact their political credibility.
