German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/200, pp. 25139-25140.
Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and
gentlemen. Esteemed citizens.
In these Corona times, – we have this week often heard it –
little is normal. The overcoming of the Corona crisis has considerable effects.
Especially affected is – no wonder – the area of Section 11,
Labor and Social. The draft budget for 2021 for the Federal Ministry for Labor
and Social has a total extent of around 165 billion euros and is thereby again
the Federal budget’s largest section. From the draft through the mark-up
session, this budget section grew by almost 1 billion euros.
A portion of these increases can be understood to pertain to
some of the additions and benefits in the autumn forecast and the tax estimate
which were accommodated during the mark-up session. What however annoys me are
new measures which first emerged in the mark-up session and for which new means
were proposed. Last year it was the aids for newspaper delivery, this year it
is just about 5 million euros for promotion of workplace security in German
harbors. That might be all to the good – of good intent. Yet do such ideas
always fall from heaven shortly before the mark-up session and will then be
quickly adopted? Should not the members of all the parties have the prior
opportunity to inform themselves of these measures in the section
deliberations? We shall here write a blank check of over 5 million euros for a
motion the basis of which consists of one sentence. That is not nice.
Also unfortunately not nicely written is the financing of
the basic pension [Grundrente]. You,
Herr Minister Heil, had ever again promised that in the Grundrente deliberations. Now the financing of the whole is hidden
in inexactly accounted Federal supplements and a general minimum expenditure in
the sum of 400 million euros. It will thus be planned to be able to finance the
Grundrente with savings in the respective
budget. And what if the planned means do not suffice? Will then non-insurance
benefits again be embarrassed? We must here primarily see one thing: The
expenditures for the Grundrente are
not one-time expenditures to be scraped together by necessity this one time in
the budget, happy to have been in some way financed. The Grundrente will be in the coming year an increasing budget expense
item. Should then the financing always thus pass through the general minimum
expenditures?
We of the AfD delegation have shown during the budget
deliberations how we can solidly, properly and before all comprehensibly
finance the Grundrente. It would have
been nice if you, Herr Minister Heil, had taken up this idea in the mark-up
session. Yet good; the next Labor Minister must then wrestle with these
confusions created by you.
We of the AfD delegation have shown during the budget
deliberations how money might be saved if the Federal government and the States
would follow existing law. It here concerns the costs due to rejected asylum applicants
who will not be deported. That alone is still 4.4 billion euros in Section 11.
An additional potential savings is the Federal portion of the costs of housing.
The Federal portion as a percentage was increased, the Federal Audit Authority’s
testing powers were reduced. There are therefore in this area very many cases
of abuse. The Federal Audit Authority in its opinion on the cost of housing
benefits has adversely criticized that the costs of housing refugees are often
twice as high as comparable rents in the respective locality. By here now
distributing more money and testing less, the State and local authorities will
certainly not be encouraged to deal with savings in these means.
We have besides brought in a budget comment which criticizes
the sum of the supplement to the German Pension Insurance and demanded a
consequent compensation of non-insurance benefits.
As a result, we are not in agreement with this budget plan
and will reject it.
The entire budget which we are debating this week comprises a volume of expenditures of almost 500 billion euros, opposed to which is only an estimated 293 billion euros in tax receipts. Debts to a sum of 180 billion euros must be incurred. We thereby pay with credit for our social benefits. It is right and necessary to help businesses and employees when sales collapse, income suddenly ceases and many people guiltlessly find themselves in an existential crisis. Before all, it was and is in the first place the questionable lockdown preventative measures of a round of wheelings and dealings, lacking in democratic legitimacy, of the Chancellor and the Minister-presidents by which today is endangered the existence of entire sectors.
Beate Müller-Gemmeke (Greens): What then would you do? Simply nothing?
When however businessmen and employees must be rescued with
ever new measures of assistance, the question is – and which was often
presented this week – Who shall pay for that, how long, and before all,
whereof? What you do is the following:
You plug holes with money which you do not have and shove the burden onto the
future.
Matthias Zimmer (CDU/CSU): It has nevertheless been agreed!
To the truth however also belongs: That is nothing new and
has not much to do with Corona. The expenditures for social benefits – the essentials
of which are dealt with in Section 11 – for years increase. That is no reason
for joy and no reason for a pat on the back, for our budget shows, as through a
magnifying glass, the disequilibrium of a witless and short-sighted economic
and social policy. Today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. That is a declaration of
failure [Binse]. I add: Today's
part-time workers are the unemployed of tomorrow and the impoverished
pensioners of the day after.
In that we must give back to the people by means of social
benefits what we previously had taken from them in taxes and duties, we do not
create contributors but future benefits recipients who then can no longer
benefit us. That,dear colleagues, is the principal problem of your social
policy.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
