German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/41, pp. 4777-4780.
Right honorable Frau President. Dear colleagues. Esteemed citizens.
This motion here was already twice on the daily order; you have twice set it aside, the last time four weeks ago. That’s not so bad; since there is already another motion: “Reform of the Politicians’ Pensions – Admit Bundestag Members into the Statutory Pension Insurance”. Exactly which is from us and which we have also debated. I need say: I have seldom experienced such a dishonest debate, full of false assertions – an unbelievable lack of respect for the voters.
“Nothing in the world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come”, it is said. Yet here the Herr Hugo did not know the German old parties. One of these ideas is the reform of the politicians’ pension, as it was prepared already in 2013 by the independent commission on questions of members’ rights. Which was set up in 2011 by the elders council, and then indeed due to the sustained criticism of the existing system. Norbert Lammert was then Bundestag President and he said the principal problem is – cite – simply not avoiding, by means of the statutory construction, the suspicion of self-serving. For all that, he spoke only of a suspicion.
The results of the commission we all since 2013 have passed on like a hot potato from government to government, and I say: Many of today’s colleagues apparently wanted that all of this remains so, as it is, otherwise you would not have so done down our motion. In that regard, the inclusion of the Bundestag members in the statutory Pension Insurance is nevertheless something you all supposedly want – as far as Herr Heveling. For colleague Grau, that was even a question of rectitude. Colleague Dieren was also quite firm, as besides his entire delegation. Only: Why did he then for an entire six minutes talk past the theme of statutory Pension Insurance? What should that be? And in the Union too is the thought, ja, not entirely unknown.
Yet, as we of the AfD reminded you of that with our motion, it was again set aside because we supposedly were in the wrong, as Herr Grau meant. Note: When we as AfD want the members to pay into the statutory account, then naturally it’s not out of fine motives like your party, but so to divide or make the parliament ridiculous, to sow mistrust, or – fully besides the point – to keep people in a psychological dependency. To such a need it again comes! That came from Herr Nacke who for half his speaking time insulted us with citations from a book from 1978. I call that conspiracy blather [Verschwörungsgeschwurbel]!
Dear colleagues, it can be done so; I understand that. But I betray to you a secret: It’s all the same to the citizens out there. The citizens out there have a nose full of your partisan purity orders [parteitaktischen Reinheitsgeboten], they also no longer want to hear of all that does not go. The citizens want you to get on the ball and show that you don’t take yourself as more important than the interests of the citizens.
It is thus quite simple: Either you are for the inclusion of the Bundestag members, thus with us, in the statutory Pension Insurance – then go and work up a concept with your government majority; nothing other do we require with our motion – or else you do not want it; then leave it and let the voters decide what they think of it – nothing more and nothing less. But please stop further cackling [weiter zu verkackeiern] at the citizens.
I thereby come again to the motion which is presented here today to us and which unfortunately – and I say this with real regret – once again turns out to be the usual socialist cheese. Here is found for example the demand for doubling the income threshold, and indeed for all. That would presently be around 17,000 euros.
Sören Pellmann
(Linke): It would be a first step!
And as always, higher pensions would be cut. With other words: When all alike are poor, you are happy. In the end is the single pension.
Sören Pellmann
(Linke): Read and understand such a matter!
To that extent, it is insolent of the Linke colleagues to accuse us, as it happens, of wanting to enrich ourselves because we – note well, only for members – want to moderately raise the income threshold, and rather tall talk from this kind of a party of the greedy for which it’s basically always about the money, namely other people’s money.
Dear colleagues, a pension system is not reconstructed with redistribution. Where that leads, we also presently see in the pension package. Only here the money comes not from the rich, but from the young who at sometime need to pay for the entirety, and indeed without any guaranty that, from that, something remains for them. It cannot so continue.
Dear colleagues, it is five before twelve. The business associations, the employees, the experts council, and not last the young, at least those of the CDU, know this. And the citizens know it, too; they no longer believe a word from you.
What use is it then to write into the law horrendous sums of tax subsidies beginning in 2029 for the pension when these billions are not there? And I say: They are not needed, since the solution lies at hand; it’s called pension reform. This however would mean not to again shove off the responsibility to a commission and until the cows come home, as you now for decades have practiced, but finally to begin with the measures which are needed. Then you could renounce namely dubious tricks like the setting aside of the catch-up factor.
There are so many possibilities: A more rapid increase in the capital-covered expansion – for that, we have already put forward in the last legislative period a substantially better alternative for an early start pension with our motion for a Junior Savings Deposit – , the relief of the Pension Insurance from the ballast of non-insurance benefits, the inclusion of additional groups in the statutory Pension Insurance. And we require measures to prevent old age poverty. It is nonsense that, for example, the new mothers pension should be counted in the basic security. As the AfD, we for years demand a 25 percent allowance for the elderly in the basic security.
And I thereby come to an additional false assertion which is here gladly called in against us, that namely the AfD had no proposals of its own, as it better goes. And that’s not right. We even have a better alternative to the so-called active pension, a motion in which the self-employed plainly do not again remain outside, and in which employees are plainly not as ever disadvantaged. This motion is also put forward. Additional motions for private and occupational [betrieblichen] provision will follow.
Dear colleagues, you see there are many opportunities in the pension area, only – and thus the circle closes – the motion put forward does not belong to that.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
