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]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rainer Kraft, April 29, 2022, Energy Policy

German Bundestag, April 29, 2022, Plenarprotokoll 20/32, pp. 2916-2917.

Esteemed President. Valued colleagues.

The draft law put forward is nothing other than your admission that the energy policy of Chancellors Schröder and Merkel has failed. In these 23 give-away government years of the SPD, Union, FDP and Greens, Germany’s outstanding energy supply, with its reliable and well-priced energy, was wantonly destroyed by you. You have thus brought this country’s citizens and businesses to a situation of endangered livelihoods and Germany to a great dependence on a foreign power. It would simply clarify whether it is a matter of pure stupidity or of betrayal.

With Corona and the war in the Ukraine, you seek to steal away from your responsibility. In that regard, the Wall Street Journal already in 2019 – thus, before Corona and long before the Russian invasion – judged that your energy policy is the world’s dumbest. To where has this – your – dumb energy policy led us?

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): To a new level!

To inflexible electricity production markets and expensive end consumer prices.

A brief example: From 2010 to 2012, the natural gas price in Germany rose approximately 40 percent. As a result, the generation of electricity from gas was reduced by half, combined with a corresponding increase in electricity generated from coal. The electricity producers thus changed from expensive gas to coal of good value and thus avoided passing on the increase of gas prices via the electricity to the end consumers. That is called “market economy”. 

Let us quickly jump to the year 2021. Again, the gas price is extremely high. Yet how fares the electricity production from gas? At a record level, because your long-term subsidized scrap-electricity from renewables in 2021 still does not deliver, but a switch to coal is no longer possible because irresponsible acting adherents of a climate voodoo sect have passed a withdrawal from coal law. As a result of that, expensive gas continues to generate electricity and thereby drives up the gas price. You bear the blame for that. You have buried diversification in the electricity production branch by means of your withdrawal decision. You have abolished the market economy in the energy sector.  

You now repair the aforementioned law; since gas becomes scarce in Germany. But one moment: So scarce, Herr Krischer, can gas in Germany certainly not be, since this government, for weeks and months, undertakes nothing to reduce electricity generation from gas in Germany, by which more electricity from coal is obtained or by which more electricity from nuclear energy is produced.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Then where does the uranium come from? Mein Gott!

Since what do Poland and Bulgaria actually say to that you continue to generate electricity from valuable gas, just because you refuse to make use of coal and nuclear power for electricity generation? Thus, say yes to German coal and say yes to nuclear power in Germany!

Now your draft law lays down how and when you are able to place under trusteeship and/or expropriate owners of critical infrastructure. The required condition for that reads – cite: When service orders are not filled by the energy sector and an impairment of the supply security threatens. – Congratulations, Herr State Secretary! You can thereby on the first day this law takes effect place under trusteeship or expropriate all wind and photovoltaic facilities in Germany; since these never satisfactorily fulfill their “energy sector service orders” and they permanently endanger the supply security in Germany.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Idiocy!

But all your state planned economy brings simply nothing to this issue. It is namely a matter of a systemic failure of these low-value methods of energy production. The AfD has ever forewarned of this. Now sprouts the seed of the energy transition, which is to say: No, it still does not sprout; it just germinates. For the citizens, this means exploding costs and an insecure supply,

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): The renewable energies lower the costs!

while the energy transition lobby – it absolutely howls, the energy transition lobby – will now be fed with the taxpayers’ money. Your draft law changes nothing of that. Your failures may be summarized in three terms: Energy transition, withdrawal from nuclear, withdrawal from coal.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Yes, exactly! Sehr gut!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jörn König, April 27, 2022, Digitalization and Taxation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/30, pp. 2686-2687.

Right honorable Frau President. Dear spectators.

The CDU/CSU with a motion wants to make transparent the digitalization costs of tax law proposals.

            Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): Correct!

We share this goal.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Very good!

We find however that the Union cannot credibly represent these concerns.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Why?

The motion is a historical digression on the partially failed introduction of tax software in the financial administration, beginning in the year 1991, thus prior to KONSENS; called namely FISCUS. Since then, the Union has governed 24 years. At the latest after the Machtübernahme [taking power] in the year 2005

            Antje Tillmann (CDU/CSU): “Machtübernahme” is not at all the right term!

            Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): Verantwortungsübernahme [taking                                            responsibility]!

– after taking charge of the government in the year 2005, you the Union would have been able, and needed to, implement this goal of the motion. This motion, a few months after the change of the government, actually shows your failure as a government.  

Ladies and gentlemen of the Union, you have with your greatest Chancellor of all time in the years 2010, 2012 and 2017 declared digitalization to be a top priority. Yet in the entire 16 years, you forgot to cast into law this relatively simple digitalization motion. On that account, we can all of us still well recall that many Union members had sufficient time for, as an example, lucrative mask deals.

Thus why should the governing delegations actually do you the favor of now implementing your motion? Do you understand the new government as a repair operation for neglected duties?

The motion quite well describes the origin of the failures and eternal delays in the IT implementation.There are – I cite: “Constantly new legal and political requirements”. In fact, the legislation ever again ever more rapidly changes. Meanwhile, there are monthly – earlier, it was yearly – articles in the newspapers; here is one from 2022:

            [The speaker holds up a paper]

Pension Taxation Changes. – And here, it changes in October. – This is for the normal citizen just simply bewildering.

We here in parliament, and especially the present governing delegations, attend to these failures with ever new laws – it can be safely said, with a regulation mania. The constant changes in the tax law are simply harmful. The Union’s motion is in this connection also simply just muddling along with eyes on the road. What we need would be a long-term concept for the digitalization of our administration and tax collection – simple, slim, free of bureaucracy and secure for the future. In regards the citizens, trust, mutuality, transparency and durability are more imperative than ever.

The question thus is: How is it made better? The AfD in this regard has laid on the table the right proposal on the basis of the Kirchhof model. With this model, you, dear Union, campaigned in the year 2005; unfortunately, you afterwards quite opportunistically chased Professor Kirchhof off the Hof – once again, a broken election promise; for you, it is, ja, a routine.

With the AfD model, the complexity and thereby the lack of transparency would have been eliminated in the tax law. It is ever still more ridiculous to assert that 80 percent of the tax literature comes from Germany. It is in reality only 15 percent. Yet that too is an expression of over-bureaucratization; since we have only 2 percent of all taxpayers worldwide.

The goal must be that the average taxpayer once again understands his tax statement. This must be united with a distinct relief of the middle class. If you want to make the tax collection modern and contemporary, then implement our motion, Drucksache 19/25305, which enlists for a tax collection pilot project with Distributed Ledger technologies.

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Oh!

You will ask, What is Distributed Ledger?

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): No, we know.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): We know.

            Anke Domscheit-Berg (Linke): That is [****]. Almost always!

It is what your commissioner calls “blockchange” when he means blockchain.

Right honorable parliamentary colleagues, take the motion as an occasion to reduce taxes and radically simplify the tax law on the basis of the AfD proposal. Then the motion also has its good. We will abstain.

            Matthias Hauer (CDU/CSU): Since it’s not so bad when you abstain!

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]