Peter Boehringer, September 10, 2019, General Finance Debate

Peter Boehringer

General Finance Debate

German Bundestag, September 10, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/110, pp. 13534-13536

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria and is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee. He here responds to the coalition government’s 2020 budget proposal.]

Herr President. Honorable colleagues.

We have heard it: “We can do it – Part 2”.

The government has presented and today presents no serious budget planning. We are yet again far away from a complete and realistic outline of the charges. The Finance Minister will in the next twelve months despair of over-due paper, yet reckon up the appearance of budget solidity. Besides in that regard, the present flow of tax revenue is the accomplishment of the citizen and business, not the government.

            Michael Grosse-Böhmer (CDU-CSU): Absurd! It was always so! 

            What an insight!

Yet the cash accounts in 2020 will look otherwise. Just like the coalition, many of the firms are meanwhile moaning. We are experiencing the last summer days of tax revenue before the business cycle winter. The childish policies against key German industries will for purely ideological reasons inflict disaster upon the labor market and budget, even while the CO₂ fees initially irrigate the accounts with yet more money. The income side of the budget is positively distorted by the historically unprecedented long-term cyclical program of the [European] Central Bank. By this autumn, the European Central Bank [EZB] will have again injected 200 billion euros of funny money [Luftgeld] into the system. With this voodoo economics, the central banks are actually destroying all markets.

With zero interest credit, everything can be financed – at the cost of the citizen, since this exceptional situation expropriates saver and pensioner as even so the renter by the housing price bubble. The state saves each year more than 100 billion euros, the citizens losing this amount. Without this absolutely special effect, the budget would never be balanced.

Correctly reckoned, this rate savings ought to lead directly to tax reduction. Instead, it is the flip side of the negative interest rates that put a hit on the people’s old-age protection. The zero percent money policy is a declaration of war on the citizen.

In fact, it is thereby that the wealth tax [Vermögensteuer], so warmly beloved by the SPD, is already again introduced. Yet what does the Finance Ministry do? Not even the most obsolete of taxes, the Soli, is to be abolished. By 2020, the Soli will already have no more legal basis. The AfD, the scientific service, the Federal Budget Authority, see it thusly. The Finance Ministry knows exactly that, yet nothing official is permitted. Even the former leader of the Finance Ministry tax office protests against the continued collection of the Soli, even so the taxpayers’ union. There is already a budget liability of 20 billion euros; for the entire planning period even 54 billion euros. Herr Minister, is this disregard of the legal opinion of all these institutions serious? You are putting future generations at risk of a disaster of billions.

Furthermore, it is a continuing obfuscation to speak of the – quote – 90 percent no longer paying when when more than 50 percent of the Soli revenue is retained. You actually abolish only half of the Soli, the remainder is a rhetorical trick, nothing other. And even this 90 percent not paying is a false assertion. Since the Soli payment out of the proceeds of the mulcted savers is retained, it is in reality more than 10 percent of the taxpayers who will continue to pay the Soli.

Then the climate theme. The Bundestag would be today, ja, the place to discuss the legendary climate budget. Yet the government now lays before us a budget plan in which the media rumored, giant CO₂ portion is itself simply absent today from the first reading. That is a parliamentary impertinence. And in so far as a portion of it is already in the budget, we refer to a 100 million euro payment to the EU for certifications presuming to make planned-economy allocations of CO₂, it is a completely ideological rip-off of the citizen.

Themes of major risk. Quite a number are no longer found in the budget. Again lacking, despite multiple demands, Herr Minister, the billions to back up the euro rescue risks. The budget is already out of balance on that account alone. Further we see the big bank rescue risks, in part indirectly those of the EZB, yet thereby again also German risks. It threatens to break the earlier promises of 2012: Never again bank rescue with tax money!

The compensation payments for the purely ideologically motivated coal shut-down were initially - initially! – budgeted at 60 percent less than promised. They were then under the pressure of the election campaign again increased, but unfortunately not completely included in the finance plan. For 2020, it is only 500 million euros. Definitely not budgeted are the likely successful damage claims of the power plant employees. Very clean and efficient basic power power plants will be forced off the grid for purely ideological reasons. In terms of energy, environmental technology and economics, that is a grotesque proceeding.

The legal consequences are clear: There will be billions in suits over special write-offs and foregone business profits. The BMF [Federal Finance Ministry] knows this risk from the nuclear power verdict of 2016. Yet it is not included. After you, the deluge. Is that serious?

The risk of Germany’s EU payments: They are, beginning in 2021, in the future calculated at 1 percent, although the government without necessity has now already made much higher pledges to the EU. We thus also thereby figure a deficit.

The risk of Brexit’s additional costs: Measured by the so far not signed Brexit treaty, Britain has yet to pay 45 billion euros to the EU. At the moment, there is nothing to be seen of it. During the present financial planning period, a no deal Brexit will thus be for Germany some 12 billion euros, partly beginning in 2020. And this is not provided for in the budget.

The risk of increased defense expenditures. A completely obscure situation prevails here. The troops want much, NATO even more. The positions of the Defense Minister and the Finance Minister however vary. There is no clarity. The investments are, despite what they have plainly said, at less than 10 percent once again much too low. There is no real growth in 2020. That simply does not agree. For broadband construction and the Digital Pact there is absolutely nothing and the investment quota even decreases. Those are the facts, Herr Minister, despite what you have plainly said.

No one speaks of the steadily increasing risk of an electrical black-out, nor does it appear in the budget. Yet it increases permanently due to the energy transformation [Wende]. The costs of migration for the social budget are also not be underestimated. The cost basis increases. The compensation to states and localities will have to be raised. That is an additional major risk in the planning. Today, each indeed wants in some way to receive migrants, but no one wants to pay the bill. That is self-righteous [gutmenschliche] hypocrisy. The localities’ readiness to receive will be bought with tax money. Good deeds at the cost of foreign people however have no moral worth.

The risk of an unconditional basic pension. It is in no way planned for in the budget. An unadulterated flop.

Then there is a special risk. There is a media report according to which 20 billion euros could flow to Iraq so that Isis murderers there will not be too harshly condemned. The government does not indeed  confirm this planning, yet the report’s underlying paper clarifies nothing. 20 billion euros: That would be more than the combined budgets for families, seniors, women and children, and development assistance – just for a couple of Isis fighters in Iraq. I demand from the government an explicit clarification of the origin of this report.

The coalition must finally trouble itself to use German money for the German citizen. Truly middle-class [bürgerliche] parties would do that. For all that, the tax money comes from these same citizens and it is still too much. The Finance Minister in the fat years can use up the illegitimately collected asylum reserve funds yet even these 30 billion euros will be gone by 2021.

I come to conclusion. After us, the deluge, as well as the devastating mega-crises. That is the apparent plan of this so serious federal government.

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Armin-Paulus Hampel, September 25, 2019, German Foreign Policy

Armin-Paulus Hampel

German Foreign Policy

German Bundestag, September 25, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/114, pp. 13926-13927

[Armin-Paulus Hampel is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Lower Saxony and previously was a television journalist. He is the AfD’s foreign policy spokesman in the Bundestag. Jürgen Hardt is Bundestag foreign policy spokesman for the governing CDU. Heiko Maas (SPD) is the German Foreign Minister. ]

Many thanks. Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear guests in the German Bundestag and at screens at home.

In 2017-2018, we saw the pictures from Iran: Young people out in the streets, an Iranian Spring appearing to be developing. Changes in the country were possible, appearing to be obtainable, and the political leadership itself was moved.

Today we stand before a completely new situation. The policy in relation to Iran has not led to success. We of the AfD are of the opinion that the nuclear agreement with Iran should not have been recalled. We hold that to be a failure of American policy. It would have been better: Pacta sunt servanda. Treaties must be kept! Nevertheless – Herr Hardt, you have mentioned it – the times have changed. When we still had influence in Washington we were able with the Americans to insist that this treaty be re-negotiated and indeed in regards precisely those questions which were not included in this treaty and which are important for us. Today we stand before a heap of rubble. And not only in regards Iranian policy. What’s more, the entire Near East is destabilized. You know all the countries: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen. The Western policy has failed completely.

The question however is – why indeed we are sitting in the German Bundestag –: What can German policy now contribute? We for many years had a large and good influence in Iranian policy. Traditionally, our relations have been good. Today, nothing of that remains. We Germans sit at the side table [Katzentisch]. No one can believe that we still have decisive influence, not with our allies, and less than ever with the American allies. They have followed up. Herr Macron has now made the unilateral, national decision to send a naval unit to the Straits of Hormuz. There was no agreement with the German Foreign Minister and none with the British during Brexit. We let slip the opportunity to insert ourselves as acquaintances of Iran and as participants in the talks – as we could have done. And we have not succeeded in having an influence on the Near East countries.

Herr Hardt, you are entirely right – there was once a proposal from us, and Herr Trittin has also mentioned it in committee –: A conference on security and cooperation in the Near East, including all those who would contribute to setting in motion a long-term process of stabilization similar to the Helsinki KSZE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe]. And that was not an agreement but a process which ran for many years and contributed to the building of trust and ultimately to the stabilization of Europe. This result we celebrate this year on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

German influence in this form no longer exists. Herr Maas has actually offered no comment on the situation in the Gulf; I have heard nothing. Most of all – we have witnessed it – Herr Macron has assumed the leadership. As acquaintances of Iran, we are on the sidelines. Herr Macron in Biarritz has impressively shown how policy is implemented; I have already referred to his national unilateralism. And the visit of the Chancellor to the UN in New York has not strengthened our position; of that, we have heard nothing.

To the federal government: In the days of a Helmut Kohl and a Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Germany was in fact a global player. I myself as a journalist was then a witness when George Bush said to Helmut Kohl: Helmut, we are partners in leadership. From those days are we long since departed. Then, we actually were a global player. Today, we are just a global payer. That is the difference...

I am grateful, ladies and gentlemen.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Götz Frömming, September 12, 2019, Education and Research Budget

Götz Frömming

Education and Research Budget

German Bundestag, September 12, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/112, pp. 13804-13805

[Götz Frömming is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Berlin. He is a teacher and here responds to the government’s 2020 budget proposal for education and research.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Frau Minister, as I was listening to you – it goes down like oil – I could only ask myself: Where actually is this country which you have been describing? It sounds like a Utopia, yet it unfortunately has not much to do with reality. Over half of your budget, Frau Minister, is tied up in the so-called federal-state agreements. The federal audit authority criticizes that in its presently submitted report. Why exactly? Because we thereby enter ever more deeply into core areas which pertain to that federal order of the states specifically defended in our basic law [Grundgesetz]. With the Digital Pact and the entry of the federal government into the basic financing of colleges and universities, you edge towards a violation of the constitution.

Independent of this constitutional problem, the federal-state agreements are in other regards quite dubious: for one, with the help of a golden bridle you force upon the states and localities education policy goals which would not be pursued without the millions of the federal government or an altered prioritization. I cite as example the construction of all-day schools as well as the digitization of teaching and learning. For another, with these partly special funded, long-term means, the formation potential of the duties appropriate to the federal government is reduced. To say it yet again in clear words: Frau Minister, it is not the duty of the federal government to bring tablets or i-phones to the schools or purchase software. It is the duty of the federal government to take care that in Germany there are again firms which are able to develop and manufacture these things.

The federal audit authority legitimately criticizes that. For the first time in history, the federal government with the presented budget enters into the long-term financing – I have mentioned it already – of colleges and universities and other state institutions. Thereby will be effected the once clearly separated federal responsibility between federal government, state and locality. The citizen can no longer comprehend who exactly pertains to what and for what is thereby also responsible.   

            (Noise from SPD, Grünen.)

I can only imagine that you do not want to hear that. An important principle of democracy, that the citizen knows whom he must vote against when something goes awry, is no longer to be.

            Kai Gearing (Grünen): It is always correct to vote against the AfD.

Ladies and gentlemen, with the foreseeable failure of the Digital Pact, the federal government and the states will be passing the buck back and forth. But perhaps that also is already in one sense, ja, practicing from the start the effacement of responsibilities. Ladies and gentlemen, permit me to say quite clearly: There is no digital education, and there is not a computer in the world which can relieve our children of the efforts of learning.

On the whole – according to the federal audit authority in its conclusion – I cite:

A determinative, overall concept may be missing from the agreements contracted

by the federal government and the states

Ladies and gentlemen, I wish in this situation for once to express praise for the federal audit authority. There are independent, courageous public servants in the best sense of the word there, who are dedicated to the facts and thereby to our state and not to some party or other.

            Sven Schulz (SPD-Spandau): That surprises you?

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Only the AfD applauds that!

That that can be dangerous in these times, as we have seen in the Maasen affair.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the next ten years, from 2020 to 2030, 109 billion euros will flow to extra-university research institutions like the Max Planck Society and Fraunhofer Society. That is a potent sum. Besides the Pact for Research and Innovation, the federal government will also commit itself to the promotion of colleges and universities. Here, in the same time frame, 40 billion euros are foreseen, thus totaling 150 billion euros for research institutions and post-secondary education, 150 billion euros which initially must be procured from the taxpayers, from the citizens and productive businesses, ladies and gentlemen. The taxpayer therefore has a right to know what exactly happens with the this money and also whether is is well invested. In this regard, Frau Minister, I have heard little that is concrete and the federal audit authority is right to indicate on multiple occasions that improvements must be made here. The goal agreements and control function of federal government besides leave much to be desired.

Ladies and gentlemen, during the summer pause the committee for education and research had to hold a special session; the colleagues perhaps may later continue. It is about an effort to clear up the remarkable circumstance of a location decision worth millions. It is about the planned construction of a center for battery research which will cooperate closely with industry. Although Ulm had been initially favored by a group of outside consultants, the subsequent choice was Münster as well as Irbenbürren, incidentally the constituency of the minister and the assistant chairman of the committee. The losing locations, ladies and gentlemen, receive residual compensatory payments; so to say, a kind of hush money.

Frau Minister, I must say to you, your conduct in this matter was not only not transparent, it was also incompetent, to put it politely. It is not permissible to thusly handle the taxpayers’ money, ladies and gentlemen.

However, ladies and gentlemen, there is also the positive to announce these days. The education comparison of the states was presented yesterday and from which proceeds that the people of eastern Germany, that is, where the AfD vote grows strongly, are more highly qualified and better educated that the citizens in the west.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): No – logical!

That besides is corroborated by the findings of the national education report of 2018. Accordingly, in eastern Germany only 7 percent of employment age adults are without a vocational certification. In states like Bremen or Nordrhein-Westfalen, it is over 20 percent. And what distinguishes east and west Germany? Correct: Western Germany has behind it years of migration of overwhelmingly non-educated [bildungsfernen] classes. Therefore, we demand, ladies and gentlemen, that the education level and the ability to be educated must become a core criterion for who may come to and remain in our country.

Karamba Diaby (SPD): What you are saying is a scandal! Such nonsense I have no longer heard!

In the view of the AfD, it is an untenable state of affairs to abandon the industrious, the well-to-do and the intelligent while we on the contrary receive among us the educationally precarious of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, in the view of the Alternative for Germany, we cannot give up our proven system of national and federal education. We cannot hand it over to foreign directed lobbyists who speak of educational justice but in truth desire to make of education a commodity. The AfD is the only delegation in this house to recognize which dangers proceed from a commercialization [Ökonomisierung] and globalization of the educational system. We in any case will defend our national education system, though it cost us our last efforts.

I am grateful.

[Translated by Todd Martin]