After months of dispute, the traffic light coalition agrees on basic child security. In the future, social benefits for children should come from a single source and thus be more easily accessible – a benefit for many families. There is also a clear winner in the traffic light dispute.
Shortly before the cabinet meeting in Meseberg, the traffic light clears its biggest current issue: basic child security can come after Finance Minister Christian Lindner and Family Minister Lisa Paus agreed last night. “The children won,” summed up Labor Minister Hubertus Heil in the morning at the federal press conference when he presented the draft law together with the FDP leader and the Greens politician.
The government and the opposition have different opinions on whether this is true. But within the traffic light there is definitely a winner: Minister of Finance Lindner. The figures alone indicate this. 2.4 billion euros are now to be spent on the “major social reform” agreed in the coalition agreement. This sum is close to the 2 billion that Lindner had planned for the next budget – and which the Greens had found too low. Paus had demanded 7 billion, initially even 12 billion euros. So she agreed to a lot less now. In the morning she also pointed out that the child benefit had already been increased – which had cost 7 billion euros.
Lindner had always argued the same way. The head of the FDP had also always insisted that the additional expenditure should only be used to simplify the application process and to combine payments – but not to increase services in general. But that’s what the Greens wanted. However, this is now only happening indirectly: In the future, benefits will be linked to the socio-cultural subsistence level, i.e. the minimum income that is necessary to participate in social life. This is to be calculated more generously for families, which would increase payments. The bottom line is that the payments are likely to increase – but not in the form of a new surcharge for the needy.
Lindner drops a bomb
But not only with the basic child security system, but also with the so-called Growth Opportunities Act, which is intended to boost the economy, Lindner can claim success for himself. Although both projects have nothing to do with each other in terms of content, they ended up in a kind of shared destiny two weeks ago. Paus had made sure of that: In the first cabinet meeting after the summer break, she refused to approve the Growth Opportunities Act and instead demanded more money for basic security – although the Growth Opportunities Act is one of Lindner’s prestige projects. This escalated the argument about basic child security and the house blessing of the traffic light was wrong again immediately after returning from vacation.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz then postponed the vote on the Growth Opportunities Act to the cabinet meeting in Meseberg, Brandenburg, at the end of August. This was tantamount to a deadline for basic child security. Because there was a risk that without an agreement on this issue, there would not have been a vote on Lindner’s Growth Opportunities Act – if the Greens had opposed it again. So the clock is ticking, because the cabinet will meet this Tuesday and Wednesday at the Brandenburg Castle. After the agreement on basic child security, Paus said in the morning that she had “no more objections” to the Growth Opportunities Act.
But Lindner also surprised the capital’s press with the announcement that his Growth Opportunities Act had been “improved” again, which is why it has an “even more positive” effect on small and medium-sized businesses. That was a small bombshell that the FDP boss dropped. The delay or, as Lindner put it, the “retardation” of the vote on the law two weeks ago provided an opportunity for this. So Lindner has not only largely fended off demands for higher benefits in basic child security, but has also been able to expand his own prestige project. He didn’t want to explain what that means in concrete terms.
Paus is satisfied
The FDP boss said in the morning: “No, there is no connection between basic child security and the Growth Opportunities Act.” However, it is hardly credible that the postponement of the vote alone should have made the “improvement” of the Growth Opportunities Act possible. It is more likely that Lindner took the opportunity to renegotiate his law and get more out of it. He sounded particularly generous when he stressed that he didn’t change the way he approached talks with Paus after she blocked the Growth Opportunities Act. Lindner also said that basic child security was the “last major social reform” that could be implemented given the budgetary situation. That was something of a reminder to the coalition partners.
Despite everything, Paus was very satisfied with the result. The hard struggle was worth it, after all, there is now a draft law that is going to be voted on by the departments. She also emphasized that no child is worse off than before and that in individual cases, such as single parents, the benefits are improved. The 2.4 billion euros are just something like start-up financing. The government expects and hopes that by simplifying the application process, more people will make claims. Because so far, many have left money that they are entitled to out of ignorance or being overwhelmed. The expenditure for basic security could increase by several billion euros. But Paus conceded: “To abolish child poverty, a bigger impulse is needed.”
Now at least this negotiating chunk no longer stands in the way of a harmonious cabinet retreat in Meseberg. As at the last three meetings in the idyllic palace, the chancellor and his ministers should be able to send images of unity across the country. Until they hit the Berlin reality again. Because even without basic child security, there are still things to be clarified: For example, the question of whether the state should subsidize the electricity price for large companies. Economics Minister Robert Habeck from the Greens is in favor – Lindner is against.