Skip to content
Faultline Prefer us on Google

Germany labournet.de

The turning point: 100 billion (only) for rearmament, the turning point 2.0: whatever it takes

Dossier "... In order to arm itself against Russia, the federal government will provide previously unimaginable sums of money for the Bundeswehr. Yesterday, Chancellor Scholz announced that the military budget would be increased from this day onwards

By labournet.de 43 min read

Deutsch (original) ·Auto-translated to English

dossier

“…In order to arm itself against Russia, the federal government will provide previously unimaginable sums of money for the Bundeswehr. Chancellor Scholz announced yesterday that the military budget would be increased to more than two percent of gross domestic product with immediate effect. With an economic output of 3.57 trillion euros, that is over 71.4 billion euros - almost 25 billion more than last year (46.9 billion euros). In addition, Berlin is providing a “special fund” of 100 billion euros in the current federal budget, which is to be used to arm the Bundeswehr. (…) It is clear that there will have to be cuts elsewhere, explains Finance Minister Christian Lindner…”Own report from February 28, 2022 for information on German foreign policy externer Link(german-foreign-policy.com), see (socio-political) comments and protests:

  • How the performance principle threatens to change the welfare state New
    “The welfare state is under pressure: cuts in health, care and inclusion follow an old logic – the power of the strongest. Where does this thinking come from, and what kind of society is created when performance decides over participation?
    People should work more. Everyone supposedly has to participate in order to advance the economy. At the same time, the money that once flowed into health, care and inclusion is to be cut in the future. Those who are considered weak in society should take a step back. There is an old logic behind this: the power of the stronger. A power that today, it seems, some take for granted.
    The law of the strongest: A historical search for clues
    This supposed right has roots in antiquity. Found in Plato, it later led to unprecedented destruction. It comes up again and again in different forms. What kind of society is this in which the strong, by which we often mean: the healthy, well-adjusted, intact ones, are supposed to be superior? And above all: Do we want to live in such a society today?
    Anyone who follows the debates about the federal government's planned cuts these days and months can quickly derive the following credo from the announcements: The weakest in society must take a step back. More precisely: those who are considered weak in society: poor, old, sick people, people with disabilities or psychological challenges. (…)
    We are not sick, society is sick or makes us sick, as critics of psychiatry put it.
    “We are not disabled, we are disabled” is a motto of the disability rights movement.
    If one observes the current discussions about planned cuts, it becomes clear that the barriers - instead of being dismantled - are actually getting higher and that the obstruction caused by society is increasing. At the same time, more and more people are taking sick leave because of psychological challenges and are suffering from social developments, overwork and isolation. (…)
    The National Socialists wanted to eradicate so-called “ballast existences,” as they called people with illnesses, psychological problems and disabilities who were unable to work according to their wishes.
    Those who were conspicuous, who they saw as less capable, as weak, were a burden in the eyes of the Nazis. It was based on clear categories, a dichotomy of the sick and the healthy, with the explanation for illnesses, disabilities and psychological challenges as well as poverty in many cases being seen in “defective” genes.
    Our present cannot be equated with antiquity or with National Socialism. The differences are fundamental. And yet it is worth asking which ideas of strength and weakness are still effective today.
    In a society that is strongly characterized by competition, success often appears as a personal achievement - and failure as an individual failure. (…)
    In 2019, politicians from the right-wing extremist AfD sent a small question to the German Bundestag. They wanted to know what, as they wrote, “economic losses arise from the unused earning potential” of people with psychiatric diagnoses who receive disability pensions. This already echoed the rhetoric that is now getting louder and louder: the idea that people who are less able to adapt or adapt to a standardized performance society are a burden on society. (…)
    This idea that people with disabilities, poor and sick people and their support are a “burden” for society is no longer only evident in history and among right-wing extremists, but also among politicians from democratic parties.
    We also encounter the idea that support is primarily a cost factor in the political center    …”Text and audio by Lea De Gregorio from October 18, 2026 on Deutschlandfunk externer Link
  • Appeal: Recognize the signs of the times – strengthen the welfare state instead of dismantling it! 14 organizations from the welfare state alliance warn of cuts in pensions, care and other social benefits 
    “…In the next few weeks, the federal government will decide on major reforms that will have far-reaching effects on the living and working conditions of many people. Reform proposals are already on the table for two of these reforms: pensions and long-term care. As if under a magnifying glass, these policy areas show whether and how our society guarantees social security, recognition, participation, self-determination and political representation. (…) The alliance is concerned that the federal government wants to implement cuts in other social areas. This applies, for example, to housing benefit, child allowance, advance maintenance payments, child and youth welfare services and integration assistance. From the election analyzes for the 2025 federal election and the most recent state elections, we know that the issue of “social security” was a decisive factor in the election for many people. A needs-based welfare state is not a “nice-to-have” in times of full coffers, but rather the necessary backbone of a defensive democracy. The upcoming welfare state reforms must therefore ensure that they do not worsen the living and working conditions of many people, but rather ensure that social security is reliably guaranteed in times of multiple crises. (…) Social cohesion is a prerequisite for democratic stability. The stability of a democratic society does not only depend on free elections, a free press or freedom of expression and functioning political institutions. Democracy also requires that people perceive themselves as equal members of society and have the opportunity to participate in social, cultural, economic and political life.The protective and enabling welfare state therefore has not only social and economic significance, but also essential democratic significance. Welfare state reforms must reach where people experience them: in everyday life, at work and at home. We want strong, reliable and solidarity-funded social security systems and adequate financing for the community. We want an effective and citizen-oriented welfare state at the federal, state and local levels. We want a welfare state that ensures good work, enables transitions on the labor market in times of crisis and prevents unemployment. We want a welfare state that secures living standards, prevents poverty, reduces social inequality, promotes inclusion and enables participation. We want a welfare state that strengthens gender equality and enables all people to live a self-determined and economically independent life. We want a welfare state that protects the climate and combines ecological restructuring with social security. We want a welfare state that appropriately taxes large assets and inheritances and finally effectively combats tax fraud.” Appeal from October 5, 2026 to the Joint Association externer Link– but perhaps less admonition for unity and more call for resistance (cf. France) would be appropriate…
  • The social attack from above as part of a (neo-)liberal-authoritarian crisis regime
    “The federal government has announced a comprehensive attack on the working and reproductive conditions of the class under the slogan “modernization of the welfare state” and is obviously planning to implement it quickly. As with the red-green agenda in 2010, it is now about more than just short-term crisis or economic intervention. Then, as now, it is more a question of a strategic attempt to initiate a new, lasting surge in accumulation or the permanent and structural improvement of theConditions of reproduction of capital. Of course, the general conditions are significantly different today: On the one hand, the international financial crisis of 2008/2009 largely slowed down the accumulation spurt intended by the red-green coalition. On the other hand, the Russian attack on Ukraine, the upheavals between the EU and the USA and the global reorientation of the US administration as well as the new role of China have massively changed the political and economic guardrails for the state and capital in Germany. The social attack of the current crisis regime is therefore also an integral part of a new political and economic aspiration to become a great power, including the willingness to be able to assert one's own economic interests militarily anywhere in the world if necessary. Armament and readiness for war are not the direct causes of the propagated “modernization”.of the welfare state”. However, the desired war capability and social are very goodAttacking two sides of the same coin: the state and bourgeoisie in Germany are also repositioning themselves internationally.
    General attack on the class
    The federal government's measures that are now being publicly discussed tie in relatively seamlessly with the political and ideological decisions of Agenda 2010. And it is therefore hardly surprising that the federal government and its think tanks (Peter Paul Zahl once aptly characterized the “experts” and “wise men” as “hired brains of capital”) are now again referring to Agenda 2010. Overall, however, the measures currently being discussed in the federal and state governments are a general attack that goes well beyond the 2010 Agenda in both its breadth and its radicalism. (…)
    Increase in the rate of added value
    The planned measures in the area of ​​the direct production process are clearly aimed at forcing additional work on the one hand and at making labor cheaper on the other. Expressed in the vocabulary of criticism of political economy, it is about an increase in the rate of surplus value or exploitation. The state and capital currently seem to be primarily interested in forcing additional work and increasing absolute surplus value. The propagated reduction in part-time work, the planned elimination of waiting days in the event of illness and the abolition of electronic sick notes are aimed at a forced valorization of labor power, as is the attack on the eight-hour day planned under the motto of more flexible working hours or the expansion of Sunday and public holiday work. With the tax incentives planned in this context, capital will largely be released from paying for overtime. (…) In parallel to the direct enforcement of overtime, many of the planned measures also aim at greater control of live work by strengthening internal command. (…)
    Class reproduction level: lower
    The threats of mass unemployment also target the wages and salaries of dependent employees. In fact, they are already having an effect: the works council and union at Porsche accept a significant wage waiver in exchange for the company's temporary commitment to securing the location.7 On the other hand, the price of labor as a commodity also includes indirect wage components, such as the capitalists' social security contributions.
    At the level of society as a whole, the reproduction costs of the class also include the costs for schools, daycare centers, hospitals, care facilities, social assistance/citizen's benefit, homeless assistance, integration assistance, child and youth welfare, etc., i.e. the entire social security system that is necessary for the life and survival (not to mention something like "social participation") of all parts of the proletarian "multiverse" (Karl Heinz Roth). These reproduction costs are predominantly financed by taxes, i.e. through funds that are transferred to the state from the surplus value of the capitalists on the one hand and the wages and salaries of dependent employees on the other.
    Against this background, the attacks on health and nursing care insurance,    on citizen's benefit, on pension insurance, on child and youth welfare and integration assistance, on housing benefit and on the so-called "voluntary benefits" of the state, nothing other than an attempt to reduce the reproduction costs of the class as a whole and thus to increase the rate of surplus value at the level of society as a whole - and not through an increase in labor productivity, but through a direct attack on the reproduction level of the class, i.e. through impoverishment. (…)
    Control vs. needs orientation
    If you follow the federal-state action plan for these regulatory areas, then the cuts planned here will be implemented with a radical backlash to the basic social policy orientation. The previously dominant mentality of children, parents, families and people with disabilities as self-determined, autonomous legal entities is being replaced by a return to the primacy of state planning and control guidelines. It is not the individual needs and wishes - which can also be enforced in court in case of doubt - that decide the actual performance, but rather the decisions of the youth and integration offices. The authoritarian crisis regime is also evident in the instances of social policy regulation, and the desired new dirigisme is the most obvious expression of one    increasingly blatant authoritarianism towards those parts of the class that cannot or can no longer be integrated into the exploitation logic. (…)
    Potential for division and perspectives
    The “modernization of the welfare state” is revealed to be a general attack on the class and its conditions of reproduction, but regardless of when and in what specific form the planned measures are actually implemented, the individual class segments will be affected very differently. The employees in the companies are affected differently than the unemployed, low-income earners and proletarian families who are dependent on social support systems, as well as the elderly and the sick. And even from industry to industry, the effects of the desired flexibilization of working hours, the weakening of occupational safety, the easing of fixed-term contracts or the planned company pensions can vary. It is to be feared that the integration of the SPD and the trade unions in the "negotiation of an overall package" will be carried out on the one hand on the basis of considerable divisions among the dependent employees and, on the other hand, at the expense of the "dysfunctional"/"unable to perform"/poor, i.e. those who resist the valorization in the so-called standard systems. (…)
    In view of the federal government's radical plans, the reactions so far from both the DGB unions and the large welfare associations have been shockingly cautious. They seem neither able nor willing to name and criticize the planned measures and their overarching context. This is not only fatal because these large organizations are most likely to have the organizational framework to counteract the various "partial areas affected" and to focus on the attack on all class segments. Apparently neither unions take it    welfare associations are also true that the “modernization of the welfare state” is also truemeans the de facto abolition of the corporatist Keynesianism of the 1960s - 1980s…”Article from the Blue Monday group in express - newspaper for socialist company and union work, issue 9/2026 externer Link

  • Record budget for the Bundeswehr: one in five euros will go to defense in 2027 - cuts will be made elsewhere
    “140 billion for the troops, cuts in parental benefits and development aid: the defense budget for 2027 is growing like never before - the opposition is warning about the price.
    While most cabinet colleagues will have to step down in 2027, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius's (SPD) budget continues to grow. The core budget budgets 109.7 billion euros for defense - 27 billion more than in the previous year, an increase of almost 33 percent. This means that in 2027, every fifth euro from the federal budget will flow into the Bundeswehr. And it doesn't stop at these billions. In addition, there is around 30 billion euros from the expiring special fund, financed through loans. A total of 140 billion euros will be available for the troops and their equipment next year - an unprecedented sum. It is the largest defense budget since the end of the Cold War. (…)
    The price of rearmament: Where the state will put the red pencil in 2027
    The explosive downside of the record sum is what is missing elsewhere. Because defense is apparently financed indefinitely thanks to a far-reaching exemption from the debt brake, cuts are being made in many other areas - a topic with political explosiveness that was also raised in the debate    …”Article by Christoph Elzer from September 11th, 2026 in the FR online externer Linkand to that:

    • Who pays for the upgrade? Strengthening the German military costs hundreds of billions. It is completely unclear how this will be financed permanently
      "German military spending is growing rapidly. The rearmament is still essentially being financed through new debt. But this should end in the medium term - which leaves the open question of where the money will come from. (...) The federal government wants to spend 140 billion euros on armaments next year - that is 30 percent more than in the current year and twice as much as 2022, the year of the "turning point" (...) The rearmament is already tearing gaps in the budget. For next year, the Ministry of Finance is planning around 119 billion euros in new debt after around 98 billion this year. Together with the loan-financed special funds for infrastructure and climate neutrality as well as for the Bundeswehr, the new debt in 2027 will add up to almost 204 billion euros by 2030. This will drive up the interest costs: the federal government will receive 42 billion euros this year, and almost twice as much is estimated for 2030 Truger recently put the loan-financed share at over 150 billion euros in the magazine "Surplus", i.e. around three percent of economic output (...) Even under optimistic assumptions - debt brake reform and 1.5 percent growth for ten years - there would still be an unmet need of 110 billion euros - with a total budget volume of 600 billion (...) This would mean cuts in almost all other areas - in infrastructure, transport and public spending Even if the consolidation were successful, according to Schuster-Johnson, its dimensions would be too small. "Theoretically, all pension spending would have to be canceled in order to finance the rearmament."In addition, in the 2030s almost 90 percent of the budget is likely to be tied up in social and personnel expenses. The consolidation would primarily affect education and other public services. (…) So all that remains is tax increases. But here too the dimensions would be gigantic. In order to close the - optimistically estimated - gap of 110 billion euros, according to Truger's calculation, the solidarity surcharge would have to be increased almost ninefold. Alternatively, the entire wage and income tax would have to be increased by a third or the anti-social value added tax by seven percentage points to 26 percent. And even a one-off wealth levy would have to have a gigantic dimension of almost 25 percent of economic output and could only cover financial needs for ten years. Rising defense spending is "a ticking time bomb for German financial policy, for which neither politicians nor the public are sufficiently prepared," writes Truger. (...) So the question remains where the federal government wants to get the money for Germany's geopolitical awakening - or rather: from whom it wants to take it..." Article by Stephan Kaufmann from September 10, 2026 in New Germany online externer Link
    • Welfare State Alliance for Budget Week: Anyone who saves on social security weakens the backbone of our democracy
      "On the occasion of Budget Week, the 14 organizations in the welfare state alliance are appealing to the German Bundestag to adequately finance central social policy tasks in the federal budget for 2027. The welfare state is a central pillar of our community and our democracy. (...) We are deeply concerned that the planned cuts, for example in federal subsidies for pension insurance and health insurance, in housing benefit and parental allowance, will weaken our social security systems in uncertain times in which we We particularly need the strong welfare state as the backbone of our social cohesion in an economic crisis with rising unemployment rates in order to save money. We are concerned about possible savings in climate protection. The financing of the federal budget must not be viewed in isolation from the parallel reforms in pensions, health care, integration assistance and child and youth welfare. Tax relief for private households is evaporating due to the significant additional burdens due to lower social benefits and higher additional payments. (...) The resources are simply distributed incorrectly. Instead of a postulated revenue-oriented spending policy, the financing of the welfare state must be placed on a broad basis.We need strong, reliable and solidarity-funded social security systems and fair and adequate financing of the community. To achieve this, very high incomes, inheritances and assets must be taxed more strongly and fairly. Small and medium incomes need to be relieved.” Press release from the welfare state alliance from September 7, 2026 at the DGB externer Link– without reference to the upcoming protests (dossier:Trade unions, social cuts and resistance: almost 25 years of theory and practice)
  • The vast majority reject social reforms and are concerned about their social security– but no matter, the social cuts are not going fast or far enough for capital
    • The vast majority reject social reforms: 81 percent of Germans are worried about their social security
      “A majority of Germans reject the reforms of the social system. According to a survey, the rejection extends across almost all party lines. Young people in particular are very insecure.
      The ongoing debates about reforms to the social system are leading to massive uncertainty among the population. According to a study published on Friday by the Institute for Macroeconomics and Business Cycle Research (IMK) of the trade union-affiliated Hans Böckler Foundation, 81 percent of adult Germans are worried about their social security. 42 percent of people are therefore restricting their private consumption, which is weakening domestic demand.
      The study is based on a representative online survey of around 4,000 people in Germany aged 18 to 75 between June 17th and July 13th. According to IMK, the survey also shows that 76 percent of those surveyed reject the planned or partially already decided measures. 55 percent even expressed strong opposition      …”Agency report from August 28, 2026 in the Tagesspiegel online externer Linkto

      • New IMK study: Debate about social reforms: 81 percent of adults are worried about their security, 42 percent are limiting consumption
        Böckler press release from August 28, 2026 externer Link- only briefly discussed because the DGB's view of humanity (wage earners as carriers of demand) has always bothered us...
        But it's not enough anyway, see:
    • Fire letter to Merz: Siemens and Co. are demanding faster social cuts at our expense
      “… “Keep your promise: act now!” – 17 business associations and representatives of large Bavarian and Baden-Württemberg companies sent out a message under this mottoIncendiary letter externer Linkto the federal government, calling for faster social cuts in Germany. (…) In addition to Siemens, the signatories of the letter include some representatives of the automotive industry with companies such as Audi, BMW, Porsche and the supplier ZF. In addition, there are also corporations like Siemens and the heads of the metal capital associations in Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. It is not surprising that the automotive industry is particularly interested in the reforms. After all, she never tires of talking about how difficult things are for her right now, and she also threatens mass layoffs and factory closures. (…) It is true that the automotive industry is making less profit than last year or a few years ago (…). Nevertheless, billions in profits are still regularly made: BMW, for example, still achieved a net profit of 2.87 billion euros in the first half of 2026. Although that is 28.5 percent less than last year, it is still a huge amount of money. VW and Porsche even made no losses at 5.9 billion and 1.35 billion euros, but were unable to increase their profits much either. The crisis in the automotive industry is not (yet) that it is no longer profitable or viable, but rather that its profits are not enough for the bosses. (…) Overall, the DAX companies, Germany's largest stock exchange groups, recorded record profits in the second quarter: they were able to increase their operating profit before interest and taxes by a total of around 7 billion euros to 52.6 billion euros compared to the same period last year.(…) The fact that the government has no problem at all with the measures demanded by large companies is evident from the fact that even without the fire letter, the sharpest and broadest cuts in the welfare state since Agenda 2010 have already been planned and decided in the last few months. And this despite the fact that we are the ones who keep hospitals, schools and practices running, who put the cars together, develop the software or look after the customers. Those who sit at the supermarket checkout, ride delivery bikes or mop the hallways. And yet we only receive a fraction of what we work for as wages - and now our pension and the little free time we still have are supposed to count on it? (…) So instead of hoping that those who are making us worse and worse will one day do the opposite, we have to take action ourselves. This means declaring war on reforms and corporate management, in the workplace and on the street, instead of letting them endure in silence. So instead of letting ourselves be worn down by the interest of maximizing profits, we have to take a clear stand against it and fight for our right to a better life.” Comment by Thomas Mercy from August 23, 2026 at perspective online externer Link
  • Association of Democratic Lawyers: Roll backwards – The dismantling of labor and social law is gathering pace. “We demand a stop to the “reform” agenda and a broad social debate”
    “Labor and social law experts from the Association of Democratic Lawyers warn of a violation of the welfare state requirement under Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The government coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD has agreed on a “neoliberal deregulation program” (according to Prof. Dr. Truger, member of the Advisory Council for the Assessment of Overall Economic Development). (…) Apparently – according to Chancellor Merz – “the welfare state as we have it today can no longer be financed with what we achieve economically”. That doesn't stand up to a reality check. In terms of economic performance, expenditure on statutory pensions is lower today than it was 30 years ago (according to an analysis by the Economic and Social Sciences Institute (WSI) of the Hans Böckler Foundation, press release dated June 15, 2026). The cuts in the catalog of services in statutory health insurance would also be unnecessary if the non-contributory services (e.g. coverage of treatment for citizens' benefit recipients, etc.) were financed from general tax resources. In general, it is incorrect to say that social spending has “exploded”. In fact, taking inflation into account, social spending developed almost exactly in line with the development of gross domestic product from 2009 to 2019; only the COVID pandemic led to a brief increase in the welfare state quota in 2020. The increase that has been measurable again since 2024 is solely due to the deterioration in economic performance.And these deteriorations in employee rights and cuts in social benefits are supposed to bring about an upswing? Because the majority of working people need more money for the massive increase in living and housing costs while at the same time restricting welfare state benefits? Because the expansion of fixed-term employment relationships destroys security and makes family and life planning even more difficult or impossible and the entrepreneurial risk is shifted to the employees (according to the chairman of the ver.di union Frank Werneke)? Because in the event of illness, the continued payment of wages for overworked and overworked people is at risk due to new bureaucratic hurdles? (…)
    Germany has not become poorer and the costs of social benefits or continued wage payments have not skyrocketed, but rather the inequality of wealth distribution has increased enormously. The problem is not that social spending is rising and people are not working enough or are sick too often. The problem is an economic system in which a few wealthy people continue to increase their wealth at the expense of those who have little or no wealth and who rely on the sale of their labor. Why not a tax reform that places greater burdens on large incomes and assets so that the state can fulfill its social obligations? Why isn't tax evasion being combated more consistently, which, according to conservative estimates, damages the German state by around 100 billion euros every year? Anyone who has a lot can and must give a lot - there is no other way to adequately distribute the burdens of society. (…)
    All in all, we see the welfare state principle as the constitutional mandate of the Basic Law at its core. The guarantee of welfare state tasks is being called into question across the board by the “reforms” that have been pushed forward. As legal interest groups, we are firmly opposed to this! We call for a stop to the “reform” agenda and a broad social debate - with the involvement of trade unions and social initiatives and interest groups - on how to preserve the welfare state and make social participation a matter of course for everyone - including and especially for the weakest parts of society. And the working people receive the recognition and appreciation that they deserve and the constitutional mandate of the welfare state requirement is actually fulfilled..."     VDJ statement from August 20, 2026 externer Link– see in contrast:
  • Efficiency logic of the AWO: welfare state reformNew
    "What's going on here? Or: Why isn't there anything going on here? No mass criticism against impoverishment and impoverishment - against social robbery. Instead, lukewarm draft papers, dry interim reports and poor final papers from departments and commissions of the ministerial bureaucracy. And now also a study. A treatise by the Ifo Institute on welfare state reform on behalf of the Arbeiterwohlfahrt (AWO) - a social partnership research project by SPD-affiliated pension institution and capital-affiliated sweatshop, the “ideological engine room” of the business associations. What is it about? About the bundling of basic security, housing benefits and child allowances. As presented by the “Commission on Welfare State Reform” under the aegis of Ministry Head Bärbel Bas (SPD). “Employment boosters” for work subject to social security contributions, a tax allowance for single parents, improved income recognition for those in employment. For the AWO, these are “unbeatable” measures to combat poverty and integrate into the labor market. For me, however: waste, cosmetics. Pardon the “design of the reform approach”, but that is the classic reassurance formula: As long as the model calculation does not show any reductions, the reform is valid social. The fact that mergers have historically almost always led to (drastic) reductions in benefits for those who are already disadvantaged is ignored.Let's be honest: the "employment booster" called for by the AWO is nothing more than a compulsion to work through "financial incentives" that ignores the structural causes of poverty: lousy jobs, lousy wages, high rents, high energy prices. What remains is the message: Anyone who is poor should work. And those who cannot work fall outside the “efficiency” grid. The fact that the Ifo Institute calls this reform “poverty-reducing” is not a coincidence, but rather a conscious diction. The Ifoians consistently provide the economic accompaniment to a policy that defines poverty as an individual problem and employment as the only legitimate solution. The AWO is now adopting this narrative almost seamlessly. And thus makes itself the socio-political PR department of a project that does not fight impoverishment, but rather manages it.” Comment by Oliver Rast in the young world from August 20, 2026 externer Linkto:

    • “Ifo study commissioned by AWO shows: Combining social benefits enables poverty reduction and labor market opportunities”
      "The debate about the reform of the welfare state is in full swing - in the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, based on the recommendations of the commission on welfare state reform, the merger of basic security with child supplements, housing benefit and other social benefits is being prepared. On behalf of the AWO Federal Association, the ifo Institute has worked out how this merger can be designed in such a way that poverty is reduced and employment is more strongly promoted.The design of the AWO reform approach essentially follows the recommendations of the commission. The central support services for people of working age – basic security benefit, housing benefit and child allowance – will be converted into a benefit with a uniform definition of income. Contrary to the Commission's recommendations, income recognition will not be systematically worsened for anyone. An employment booster and a single-parent allowance provide targeted incentives for employment subject to social security contributions. If the reform were implemented according to the AWO parameters, the at-risk-of-poverty rate would fall by 0.9 percentage points, lower income groups would be able to increase their disposable income by an average of up to 515 euros per year and 322,000 people would overcome unemployment...” AWO press release from August 19, 2026 externer Linkwith link to the 51-page ifo research report
  • 8 million are becoming poorer: assessment of the federal government's planned social benefit cuts from a poverty policy perspective
    “So now it should come: the “autumn of reforms”. Now that citizens' money - a former prestige project of the SPD - has already been implemented and the GKV contribution stabilization law has been pushed through, the next wave of social cuts is due in the autumn: a vehement attack on our social security system that will significantly deepen poverty in Germany. (…)
    The austerity policy hits the lowest-income earners in this society with great precision. The government saves on those who hardly have a lobby. Behind every child with an immediate supplement there are poor parents. Behind every single parent there are children. Behind those in need of outpatient care are overburdened relatives. Even with a conservative estimate, over 8 million people in Germany are affected by this austerity package - almost 10 percent of our population. It affects people who have no savings and have had to cope with inflation of 24 percent in recent years (even 37 percent for food).
    A historic clearcut without a plan
    If the government's plans become reality, it would be an unprecedented program of state-imposed poverty production. You have to go far back in the history of the Federal Republic to find cuts with comparable impact…”Social cuts balance by Ulrich Schneider from August 10, 2026 at Die Linke externer Linkand above:

  • Due to rearmament and discipline: The Merz government's “reform package” breaks all records in the comprehensive dismantling of the rudiments of the welfare state
    • Coalition reform package: “Releasing the shackles” on the labor market
      "From the coalition's point of view, the labor market needs more momentum. It now wants to "loosen the shackles" with longer fixed-term contracts and easier termination options for high earners. Business and trade unions reacted mixed. (…)      Specifically, the coalition leaders are sticking with theirs“Program for recovery and employment” externer Link stipulates that unfounded fixed-term contracts for employees hired until the end of 2030 should be possible for up to 48 months and may be extended up to six times. This is “an important opportunity,” said Merz, especially for young and expanding companies. Currently, jobs can generally be limited for two years, and the time limit can be extended three times.High earners earning up to just under 15,000 euros per month should be able to terminate their contract more easily in the future. In general, severance payments should be given tax privileges if new work is started quickly. This should make quick changes from one job to the next more attractive. In addition, legal upper limits for tax-privileged Sunday and public holiday surcharges are to be increased.According to party leaders, telephone sick leave will be abolished. In the future, a certificate of incapacity for work should be presented from the first day of illness.The coalition has also set itself the goal of significantly reducing the number of young people without a school or training qualification. To this end, a “second chance” program should be developed.
      Working Hours Act postponed
      Further job market flexibilization is not provided for in the twelve-page results paper. According to Merz, a new working time law will be discussed “over the summer”. With a view to working time law, an initial decision was made: to extend the opening hours for bakeries, pastry shops and libraries on Sundays…”Report from July 2nd, 2026 on tagesschau.de externer Linkfor the“Growth and Jobs Program” externer Link to the Federal Chancellor
    • The Merz government's reform package: program for poverty and stagnation
      “The federal government has presented its “Program for Growth and Employment”. According to their presentation, it should stimulate the economy and provide new impetus for growth. In fact, the package primarily contains social cuts and additional financial burdens for people with low and middle incomes. (…) The reform package presented marks a profound change in social policy course. It represents the most comprehensive social cuts since the post-war period and its breadth and consequences go well beyond previous reforms such as Agenda 2010. (…) Civil society pressure is absolutely necessary; the welfare state should and must be defended. It is a foundation of democracy.” From theThomé Newsletter 22/2026 from July 4th, 2026 externer Link
    • Sawing on the welfare state: care, pensions, health insurance: Where the government coalition weakens social security without necessity and what alternatives researchers see
      “…The CDU/CSU and SPD also want to save on social issues. “It’s not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of setting priorities,” says health economist Heinz Rothgang to “nd.DieWoche.” »If the state wants, it can raise the money necessary for people's social security. But so far the government is planning to save public resources, for example when it comes to care, and exacerbate the problems for those affected.In social policy, there are now concrete plans and proposals for long-term care, health and pension insurance. Restrictions already apply to basic security. On Wednesday, coalition leaders announced a few further changes. We present important social policy projects and asked researchers how they assess the plans and what alternatives they see…”Article by Eva Roth from July 2nd, 2026 in ND online externer Link
    • The federal government's reform package: Peace to the palaces, war to the huts
      “…It's the old song of social democracy: With us things won't be quite so bad. That's not an attractive tune. The SPD's attempts to shape its own reform narrative have failed. The SPD prose that the welfare state should only be made more effective and leaner sounds tinny. Everyone knows that health and care is about cutting corners and saving money. The tax on the rich rises by 2 to 47 percent. This is the SPD's trophy - it's only big under a magnifying glass. (…) Black-Red wants to ban the socialization of real estate companies in federal states. This is a symbol: Democracy ends when it disrupts the interests of banks and corporations. Peace to palaces, war to huts. The fact that the SPD leadership is so eager to accept this is pathetic. (…) The government's 34 reform points have an imbalance and a fatal spirit: They free bosses and companies from bureaucracy and make life miserable for ordinary people. How diligently the Black and Red Party fights social fraud fits into this picture: an action plan is being drawn up and data will soon flow smoothly between all authorities and even energy suppliers in order to put a stop to social fraudsters. Social security fraud costs the state around a quarter of a billion euros a year. The state loses 100 to 200 billion euros through tax evasion - that is, 400 to 800 times as much. The black and red paper says nothing about vigorous measures against tax evasion…”Comment by Stefan Reinecke from July 3, 2026 in the taz online externer Link
    • Social clear-cutting: “Welfare state against fascism”
      “The German government is attacking the social security systems with “reforms” – and is even questioning the eight-hour day. Can this be stopped? (…) Many people here share the impression of an almost unmanageable avalanche of cutback announcements. “Well, where should I start?” asks an employee of the district office in the Berlin district of Pankow, who came with three colleagues, when asked why she is here today. “They want the eight-hour day, cuts in the social sector, then the health care reform, citizens’ money is already gone…” And her colleague adds: “It shouldn’t just stay the way it is now. But how about tackling the actual problems and redistributing them, for example?" The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger. “This is a breeding ground for the AfD.” She shakes her head and thinks for a moment: “Welfare state against fascism!” she then shouts and raises her fist. The others nod in agreement.
      A few days earlier, Ulrich Schneider, chairman of the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband, said at a Zoom networking meeting with around 250 participants from all over Germany that “we are experiencing by far the hardest attack on our social security system that has ever occurred since the Federal Republic was founded.” That's saying something, after all, more than twenty years ago, “Agenda 2010” and “Hartz IV” were a neoliberal all-round attack that is still considered a benchmark for drastic social cuts in Germany today.The crucial difference compared to back then, says Schneider, is that German society is in a much worse state today. (…) In fact, there are a large number of affected groups: Last week alone, the Merz government announced a comprehensive pension reform and a cut in housing benefit, which is intended to help people with low incomes to cover the rent. What else is on the table: the abolition of the already weakened eight-hour day as the maximum working time. Students recently found out that a planned increase in Bafög, i.e. training support for young people whose parents don't earn much, will probably be suspended. Citizens' money to ensure the subsistence level for the unemployed and low-income earners has already been replaced by a much more repressive "basic security" that is plunging many people into fear and despair. There are also discussions about cuts in the inclusion of people with disabilities, the maintenance advance for single parents and in child and youth welfare. This Wednesday (after the editorial deadline), the coalition wants to announce further concrete decisions regarding “reforms”.
      All of this no longer goes unchallenged. Since the beginning of June, almost seventy rallies and demonstrations against social cuts have taken place across the country, and more than forty are planned for the next few days and weeks. Many have so far remained small; a total of only around 30,000 people took part in the protests. A mass movement, as one might expect given the plans, has not yet formed. But alliances are currently emerging everywhere, often initiated by district associations of the Left Party, local trade union branches and social associations such as the Paritätisches. (…) This simultaneity - unlimited funds for the military while there is a lack of money for everything else - outrages many who are demonstrating these days, as does the fact that wealth and corporate profits remain largely untouched. Or the constant assertion made by Merz and his ministers that “we” simply can no longer afford the welfare state. In fact, the social benefit ratio, i.e. social spending in relation to economic output, in Germany is in the middle of the European range at 31 percent…”Article by Nelli Tügel in the WoZ from July 2, 2026 externer Link
    • Federal government of bourgeois coldness
      “Black-red reforms the statutory pension. From now on there will be more work to do. Alex Demirović knows what a correct policy would be. (…)
      This is bourgeois coldness. This government makes the rich richer and harasses the poor: working longer, less pension, less social support, higher taxes, overheated apartments, closed swimming pools or too high entrance fees. The decision was made to move away from solidarity pensions, i.e. not to include the rich and super-rich, civil servants and the self-employed. Instead of expanding the pay-as-you-go system, there is a renewed attempt at a funded pension. Pensioners should benefit from developments on the financial markets.      It is part of the property of money capital that it knows no history. The crises in the financial markets have been forgotten. This pension, which is supposed to come from a capital fund, will also fail. Given the shifts in the labor markets, wage earners will hardly be able to pay in regularly. Ultimately, the federal government is speculating on pension cuts. The great outrage is that the work of people somewhere in the world is being appropriated through the levers of the international financial market and corporate dividends in order to pay pensions to Germans...”Comment by Alex Demirović from June 29, 2026 in ND online externer Link
    • See the dossier on union protests:Trade unions, social cuts and resistance: almost 25 years of theory and practiceand current: DGB unions' shockingly timid criticism of the coalition's "reform package" by prioritizing "strengthening Germany as a business location" (DGB) and "reforms must bring growth" (IGM but also similar ver.di)
    • We remember the book:Target of the welfare state. Life is hard and it is getting even harder: powerful capital interests and their political allies are torpedoing our welfare state.
  • Welfare state: 37 suggestions for real savings potential from the Joint Association
    "... The Paritätische recognizes that many municipalities are in financial distress and that there is an urgent need for fundamental reform. However, it warns urgently against cuts that worsen the living conditions of people who are already disadvantaged. (...) "We turn our gaze and look at where the real potential for savings lies: in inefficient administrative structures, dual responsibilities and digital backlogs." The state apparatus itself is a first and simple starting point. Today, funding flows through a network of project sponsors, agencies and competence centers, some of which perform identical tasks. Administrative costs of up to 15 percent of the program volume arise here. Rock comments briefly: “Wasted money!” The potential for de-bureaucratization is also clear, for example, in the education and participation package, which is intended to enable children in poverty to participate in society, i.e. club memberships, excursions, tutoring and the like. However, the benefits currently only reach 18 percent of those eligible. The administrative effort eats up whatever impact could be created. The same applies to integration assistance: While the number of cases in Berlin increased by less than seven percent, the administrative costs of integration assistance there rose by a whopping 45 percent within four years, adjusted for inflation. If you really want to save, you will find more than enough starting points here. In child and youth welfare, which is exactly where the leaked proposals put the red pencil, the parity worker calculates what such savings really cost: a child who receives support too late is more likely to end up in inpatient accommodation - saved in the front, paid twice in the back.The situation is most urgent in care. Social nursing care insurance is heading for a deficit of over 20 billion euros by 2028. The Paritätische shows how this could be averted without cutting benefits: Non-insurance benefits such as contributions for people in basic security belong in tax financing, not in the nursing care fund. And the federal government still owes nursing care insurance 5.2 billion euros from the Corona period. “Nobody disputes that the welfare state needs to become more efficient and effective,” said Rock. "But efficiency means directing resources to where they have an impact. Those who save on prevention will later spend three times as much on crisis intervention." Press release from the General Joint Association of June 12, 2026 externer Linkto the association's 37 suggestions:Reform of the welfare state: proposals for de-bureaucratization and sustainable cost reductions externer Link
  • Welfare state: the chainsaw is on
    “The federal government is planning the biggest attack on the welfare state since Agenda 2010 and is also driving democracy against the wall. While the Iran war brings new price increases and global economic crises, Chancellor Merz and the Union are pushing forward with their core project: the dismantling of the welfare state. This not only increases poverty and social division, but also fuels the shift to the right and endangers democracy. An overview of the major attacks that are threatening in the coming months…”Analysis by Eva Völpel from June 1st, 2026 at the RLS externer Link, see also:

  • Social clear-cutting for great power goals 
    "... The goal of defeating a highly armed nuclear power is extremely ambitious and at the moment Germany and the EU lack the means to achieve this. That must be changed. Germany and Europe must rearm, because great power politics cannot be achieved without corresponding military strength. (...) The compulsion to rearm finds Germany in an economically weakened state. (...) There are structural causes underlying this, which are often kept secret. (...) Since the political change in 1982, a neoliberal one has prevailed in Germany Austerity policy with the help of the extensive privatization of state assets (…) New corporations made billions in profits (…) All of this points to Germany's second major structural problem. With foreign assets of 3.6 trillion dollars, it is in first place of all countries (…) Privatization and capital exports are ultimately just manifestations of capitalism that is developing into a global market necessary stages of the capitalist commodity economy (…) Under the conditions of the crisis, the 500 billion investment program and the billions for armaments also serve as a restructuring program for the industry (…) Big capital senses the opportunity in the crisis. That is why they are making extensive savings proposals for every social insurance policy.(…)Hans-Jürgen Urban (…) criticizes above all that social cuts would have negative effects on the demand side. This is (…) an appeal to the common sense of society as a whole, which cannot exist in a class society under the rule of large capitalists. There is no way to build resistance on that. (…) An alternative could only be an alliance of all the parties and groups that oppose the war policy….” Article by Tobias Weißert from May 17, 2026 in Overton Magazine externer Link
  • Clear message: 81 percent perceive the distribution of wealth in Germany as unfair and want redistribution instead of social cuts
    "... The welfare state is facing profound changes. While reforms are being negotiated in commissions, surveys provide a clear picture of what the population expects and is prepared to support. The most recentARD survey on wealth distribution externer Linkseems like a necessary reality check for politics. It not only shows moods, but also highlights guidelines on which reforms should be based. The central message is unmistakable: 81 percent of those surveyed find the distribution of wealth in Germany to be unfair. This judgment cuts across all social groups. At the same time, it is not just a diffuse feeling of unease - a clear majority is in favor of concrete redistribution measures. 64 percent are in favor of a wealth tax, around 61 percent are in favor of higher inheritance taxes. The desire for correction is present and clearly addressed politically. (…) The expectations of a performance-based pension provision are clearly formulated. 69 percent reject a reduction to just basic insurance, as recently brought into play by Chancellor Merz - among low-income earners the figure is 75 percent. Anyone who has worked for a long time wants to be able to rely on the statutory pension to ensure their standard of living. Around three quarters of employees would be willing to pay higher contributions in order to stabilize pension levels. This was recently revealed by the survey as part of the DGB social state radar. Structural reform ideas also meet with broad approval. For years, a large majority has been in favor of pension insurance for everyone, into which civil servants and politicians also pay. In view of rising civil servant pensions and the growing concerns of many pensioners, the need for more justice seems only logical. (…) Anyone who wants to make the welfare state future-proof should take the existing signals seriously – they are clearer than some political discussions would suggest.” Guest article by Verena Bentele from May 9, 2026 in the Frankfurter Rundschau online externer Link(“Clear message: Majority of Germans want redistribution”)
  • “Efficient use of resources” is the new “bureaucracy reduction”: The Paritätische leaks 70 proposals for cuts for people with disabilities, children and young people 
    • Ideas for cutting social benefits: just “innocent paper”? The Bundestag debated leaked working papers from the federal and state governments
      "For Heidi Reichinnek it is clear: "The brutality of your list of cuts is unprecedented." At the request of the Alliance 90/The Greens faction, a current hour was held in the Bundestag on Friday on a paper by a federal-state working group founded in the Chancellery - on which no member of the black-red federal government has yet commented. The Joint Association had "leaked" the document a week ago. (...) According to the Joint Association, the "collection of ideas", as SPD man Truels Reichardt called it on Friday, drawn up by a group that was set up at a meeting between Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) and the heads of government of the federal states at the beginning of December (…) Left parliamentary group leader Reichinnek particularly attacked Federal Family Minister Karin Prien (CDU) in the Bundestag (…) Like the speakers from the Greens, she contradicted the repeated objections Union politician and an SPD man said the working paper was just the result of a brainstorming session: "This is a concrete threat with a concrete plan." Like Reichinnek, Green MP Corinna Rüffer also pointed out that components of the paper were already included in a draft law drawn up by Family Minister Prien to reform the eighth social code (SGB VIII). “I criticized the use of a confidential document that only served to exchange ideas…” Article by Jana Frielinghaus from April 24, 2026 in New Germany online externer Link
    • Paritätischer reveals internal working paper: Drastic cuts plans endanger services for people with disabilities, children and families
      “The Joint Association has an internal working paper that proves: the federal government, states and municipal umbrella organizations are secretly discussing drastic cuts in services for children, young people and people with disabilities. The 108-page document, which is being published today by the Paritätisches, comes from a working group that is discussing tough cuts for people with disabilities and for children and young people away from the public. It contains more than 70 proposals for cuts with an estimated volume of over 8.6 billion euros. The actual volume of cuts is significantly higher, as almost two thirds of all proposals are not supported by any figures.
      The Paritätische is horrified by the cuts planned by the federal, state and local governments: The proposals are aimed at radical cuts in social support services. Individual legal rights to school accompaniment should be abolished, the right to wish and choose of people with disabilities should be restricted, follow-up care for young adults from youth welfare services should be abolished, and maintenance advances for single parents should be reduced. Some proposals openly contradict the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
      "What is being negotiated here under the harmless title 'Efficient use of resources' is an attack on achievements that are fundamental to social participation and that have been fought for over decades. The fact that such basic services for children, young people and people with disabilities are to be cut so radically and that the debate is being conducted in secret, bypassing the people, is equally scandalous      …”Press release from April 16, 2026 externer Linkfor theInternal working paper externer Link (121 pages) together with a detailed political classification and evaluation of 25 selected exemplary proposals
    • Comment inThomé newsletter from April 19, 2026
      Originally published bylabournet.de
      Read the original