Michael Espendiller, March 18, 2025, Debt and Defense Spending

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/214, pp. 27767-27768. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear viewers in the hall, on YouTube, and on X. 

The election fraudster Friedrich Merz, today in common with SPD and Greens, is having determined in six days as much new debt as the entire Federal Republic of Germany in total took up from 1950 until 2009, thus in 59 years. It will be, in ten years time, between 1.6 and 1.8 trillion euros. Most already surmise that with this money everything possible will happen, yet in the end it will not arrive at the citizens. 

On this there prevails a widespread consensus that the so-called infrastructure special debts are to be refused because infrastructure belongs to the regular state orders which the state has to finance from its current income. Yet there persists the erroneous belief that in the case of the Bundeswehr it would be different. I want for my delegation to here again clarify: Defense expenditures also need be defrayed from the regular budget if we want to economize efficiently and responsibly. 

All economists agree that Germany needs fundamental structural reform, that we need to rein in the bureaucracy and initiate a growth impulse. And all are agreed that in that regard it does not help to simply pour more money over the problem, as has been done without success in the past years. Why should it be different in regards the Bundeswehr? 

I have attended in the last three years as reporter for section 14 the regular expenditures in the defense area as well as the “Special Funds Bundeswehr”, and I can say to you: Our problem here is not primarily the money. Of that, the Defense Ministry now has so much that it routinely affords itself money squandering. Did you know, for example, that we spend each year 654 million euros for the so-called property security [Liegenschaften]? What is that? That is the cost for the private security services which guard [bewachen] our barracks, because that is evidently no longer to be expected of our soldiers. And we yearly pay from the Federal budget around 180,000 soldiers, the fewest of whom are on active duty. It is not known what they do all day long, yet the guarding of our barracks is apparently not a part of it. 

Or let us go the the procurement theme. In regards procurement projects also we routinely pay too much, for one thing because our government simply negotiates poorly, for another because the Federal Ministry of Defense’s requirements are set completely wrong. An example is the infantry’s heavy weapons carrier. Here, we procure the Boxer from Rheinmetall which shall replace the weapons carrier system Wiesel 2 which has been in service for around 30 years. So far, so good. Actually, the Boxer could quite easily be purchased in Germany, because it is also produced by us. Only, Rheinmetall was unfortunately at the time of the order fully booked in its  German production. One would thus need to wait somewhat longer. That besides would have been fully justifiable. But no, the Russians who lose the last two years in the Ukraine, are, ja, next week in Berlin. Thus Pistorius decided to purchase the Boxer at Rheinmetall Australia and from there have it flown in. The result: The originally planned 2 billion euros for the project does not suffice. The finance requirement climbs around 700 million euros to 2.7 billion euros. 

            Alice Weidel (AfD): Madness! Anyone can figure that!

And the flight from Australia is besides not climate neutral. 

I have only four minutes speaking time, yet I could recount for hours additional examples. 

An evaluation in the Federal Ministry of Defense does not routinely occur, neither for the use of funds and for the procurement, nor for our military doctrine. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Who then wrote your speech for you?

The Bundeswehr needs to correspond in structure and character to the altered demands of our time. Yet at the Bendlerblock is ever still a mindset of 50 years ago. And we do not change that when we now write into the Basic Law in the defense area an indebtedness possibility completely without upper limit. 

Also in the military area it remains as in the sentence: Germany has an expenditure problem and not an income problem. We will at some time look back on this day and ascertain that it did not bring us much other than debts and inflation. 

Thanks for the attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, November 23, 2022, Foreign Minister Baerbock

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/69, pp. 8058-8059.

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear spectators in the hall                        and on YouTube.

For 2023, the Foreign Office may rejoice over 7.5 billion euros for expenditures. The Ampel is thus really busting out and others here in the hall applaud. Only we say: It is too much, and before all in regards to the fascinating questions: What actually happens with the money? To where does it flow and does it do what it should? In the coalition contract, the Ampel parties are understood to have a “result-oriented budget management” [„wirkungsorientierte Haushaltsführung“]. Yet we have seen very little of that. When the budget title somehow sounds good and “climate“ or “sustainability“ are therein, then the billions fly out the window to foreign countries.

Let us for once be definite – we have already spoken of it in the deliberations. There is the so-called Federal Office for Foreign Affairs. That is a chic, new authority in the portfolio of the Foreign Office in beautiful Brandenburg on the Havel, and there work any number of motivated experts. We could once inspect it together with the Minister and it was really very interesting. One of the department leaders explained to us that in his department in this year 62 co-workers were at work on 1,900 projects, projects in 130 countries of the world with a value equivalent to 2 billion euros.  

If we reckon that up, we see: Every single expert is responsible for worldwide projects of a total value of 32.3 million euros – one co-worker, 32 million euros. Here, we naturally asked: How can a single expert comprehend and examine such a large sum, whether the money really matters and effects something? The answer ran: It will be kursorisch [cursorily] examined. We take a peek in Duden, which says:

Kursorisch: …continuous, quickly proceeding from one to another, not exacting                            in details…

Simply stated: When you  propose money for a project, it will be briefly examined, stamped; the money will be allotted, afterwards a brief report written – “all was super fine” – done, into the files. – Following our criticism, the Minister amplified that the Foreign Office’s projects were pre-tested, primarily however by the project partners. Nevertheless, Frau Baerbock also said – cite: “We do not control each, single invoice. We do not control each, single bill. We simply cannot do that”. End citation.

Look, precisely there lies the snag; since it is by no means that you cannot control each, single bill but that you simply do not want to. The funding sections [Förderabteilungen] of the Foreign Office see to the expending of money. Were it important to you, Frau Minister – wherever in fact you are – you would reconstruct the section; you would expend no money without controls. Yet you do precisely the opposite.

And in which countries then will the money generally be expended? For example, yesterday you approved an additional 33 million euros for the Republic of Moldavia, for the most part in the area of energy security. A glance at the corruption index of Transparency International shows no good picture for this country. There, the Republic of Moldavia lands in place 105, the same as Panama, and thereby is at the fore in matters of corruption, even though still slightly behind the Ukraine.  

I think, Frau Hagedorn, many people can thoroughly comprehend the government’s disposition to help that country.

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Frau Hagedorn has much more an idea than you!

The country is heavily affected by the war. Yet certainly in regards to the corruption, it should nevertheless be an especial concern for you to here enforce an ordinary control – a control whereby the money really produces something. Yet you simply do not do it, and you also will not do it merely because you say that here. Trust is good, control is better. In case someone here now says, “Yes, man, for that we have the Federal Audit Authority“ – that is a mistake. It of course controls no projects. It simply does not have the capacities for that.

How thus precisely the taxpayers‘ money will be dealt with is thus a switching point which you need to take in hand., Frau Minister. Yet you and your house control, ja, not any single invoice and not any single bill.

Yet do you know who needs to do that? The taxpayers in Germany who generate the money that you grandiosely distribute. The citizens need to precisely watch every euro; since normal people can expend the money only once. The citizens also need to preserve every, single invoice; for their tax statement, for example. If you conduct a business in Germany, you even need to do that for ten years. If then one fine day the tax audit arrives – it arrives as surely as the amen in church – then will the tax examiner inspect every, single bill and every, single invoice. May God have mercy on you if then something is thereby not right. Thus when you so lightly speak of that, that you simply cannot so precisely examine all of that, then you thereby reject for yourself a standard which is an obligation for millions of Germans. – Frau Minister, no head shaking helps here. This is just a fact.

Aside from distinctive foreign policy concepts, we here demand from you more effective controls. For that, you are more than obliged to the taxpayers in this country.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Espendiller, June 1, 2022, Foreign Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/40, p. 3952.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear spectators in the hall and on YouTube.

On the pediment of this building in which we find ourselves is written: „Dem deutschen Volke“ [To the German People]. It thus must be self-evident that German foreign policy is to be aligned with this guiding principle. Yet unfortunately in many cases, we see the opposite. It would be in the German interest to deal frugally with the German tax money and be considerate of how this money is used. It would be in the German interest to reduce debts and work on solid finances.

We nevertheless have experienced at the conclusion of the budget deliberations how an optimistic tax estimate for the year 2022 has led to that the estimate for the Foreign Office was raised over the seven billion euro threshold.

The additional tax expenditures of around half a billion euros flow almost exclusively in the direction of Ukraine, in addition to what, note well, was already foreseen and which also comes from other estimates. Thereby flows the money into a country the people of which everyone who has a heart is in solidarity with; yet where at the same time the question must be put what actually happens with this money and whether it in fact arrives where it is needed and does not seep into any non-transparent channels.  

            Frank Schwabe (SPD): How offensive!

That no one at the moment wants to hear Herr Selenskyi emerges in the Pandora Papers and that just last autumn he was accused of corruption is however in fact for me as a budget member unimportant. Since the decisive point in the expenditures policy in the Foreign Office is the deficient evaluation. There is not any balance, not any evaluation, not any results control in which the use of hard earned German tax money in foreign countries is actually made tangible.

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Offensive!

In fact, valued colleagues, the Foreign Office is not in the position to say to an inquiry what exactly, in which country, with which share, to which purpose it will be promoted. No one has an overall view over the impenetrable wild growth of projects which is financed worldwide with German tax money. Yet in committee, all other delegations are agreed that in any case more money is needed. This is absolutely insane.

Nevertheless, Frau Minister Baerbock in the deliberations has promised that by autumn will have been developed a system by which at the touch of a button data on the Foreign Office‘s worldwide projects can be summoned up. That meets not only with our approval but we also demand it. Since only when we receive for once an overall view can we also begin with an authentic evaluation and fully dedicate ourselves to the question of where we can save money. Yet until then I want to impart to the government a few brief remarks as to what does and does not serve the interests of our country.  

A gas embargo against Russia is not in the German interest; since it threatens a large number of workplaces and leads to new fiscal burdens in the areas of labor, social and economy. It leads to incalculable risks in regards our energy security. The question of with what   Germany shall be heated next autumn cannot simply be left unanswered. Germany’s dependence on energy imports created over decades can also not be ignored so to act as if it did not exist. With all appreciation of the present situation, the solidarity with the Ukraine may not go so far that we endanger our economic venue and freeze our people next winter. And for a good finale: Weapons deliveries to the Ukraine are also not in the German interest, which is what a growing majority in the population also sees.

Against this background, it is certainly ironic that the inscription „Dem deutschen Volke“ here outside on the House was made out of melted down cannons. The Federal government should perhaps ponder over the deeper meaning of this choice of material and come to its senses.

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Michael Espendiller, April 27, 2022, Defense Procurement

German Bundestag, April 27, 2022, Plenarprotokoll 20/30, pp. 2675-2676.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear spectators in the hall and on YouTube.

I have recently read a very pertinent brief analysis of our country. It therein says: Germany outsourced the protection of its security interests to NATO, its production to China and its energy generation to Russia. – Now naturally that is presented somewhat simplified, yet it nevertheless fairly hits the mark; since our country in existential questions is dependent on other nations.

We thus far welcome that this Federal government now finally wakes up and comprehends how urgently necessary an adequately equipped Bundeswehr is for the security and sovereignty of our country. The way adopted here, to make 100 billion euros in new debt, and not finally for once apply the red pencil to the expenditures policy, we nevertheless distinctly criticize. You would have also been able for once to increase the defense budget long-term. That would be cleaner fiscally and, in regards the citizens, more honest. I can thus far extensively agree with the statements of my colleague Peter Boehringer.

Beyond that, what still occupies us is naturally the procurement system. Regardless whether assault rifles, transport helicopters, tankers or the grand restoration of the Gorch Fock: The opinion prevails in the German public that the Bundeswehr in procurement matters is a barrel without a bottom, and the tax money was squandered, never to be seen again. Herr colleague Buschmann, before you again get excited: It is the tax money, which is not our money. We need attend to every euro. A reform of the procurement system is therefore urgently required. This we have ever again insisted on in the last legislature and this demand we maintain as before to be correct.   

Nevertheless, for honesty’s sake it also needs be said: Besides the procurement system, it was also ever again diverse conflicts of goals which have encumbered procurement projects. One of the largest now shows itself in regards the special fund. It is absolutely comprehensible that the Federal government, in view of the present situation of ready products available on the market, as quickly as possible sets about making the Bundeswehr cold start capable. Yet this presently means that, in the area of the largest armaments planning, Germany principally commits to products from overseas. For example, the American F-35 of Lockheed Martin shall become the successor to the Tornado. And according to present reports, the Federal government also wants to buy Chinook helicopters from the American firm Boeing.

            Lars Lindemann (FDP):  A false message!

The Eurofghter, of which a few pair are on the purchasing list, will still be built in Germany. Yet this cannot hide the fact, in regards the special fund, that location policy and a recognition of the German economy simply play no role.

Again: We also see, clearly and distinctly, the necessity of a consistent handling of the Bundeswehr’s armament. Yet it also needs be said that, with the projects eyed by the government, we negotiate ourselves into new dependencies and thereby tie ourselves down financially for decades. We fear that with the special fund it comes to a further loss of defense technology capability in Germany, and thereby also to a further loss of workplaces and ultimately of German sovereignty.

The AfD Bundestag delegation wants to maintain the hallmark “Made in Germany” and this country’s sovereignty, and we will commit ourselves to that in the deliberations.

Thanks for the attention.

            Lars Lindemann (FDP): Quickly bumbled through!

 

[trans: tem]