Scholz, Habeck, Lindner: The triple inability to apologize

Agreement in the budget dispute - Scholz, Habeck, Lindner: The triple inability to apologize

The style in which the government presented the new budget on Wednesday deserves a simple word: indecent. Three astonishingly relieved faces could be seen: the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Finance Minister smiling in front of the press. We heard a lot of self-praise: Olaf Scholz said that the talks had been trustful, confidential and constructive. People were amazed at Christian Lindner: referring to the long negotiations, he joked that he had not felt lonely over the past few weeks. And people were amazed when Olaf Scholz finally gave the reason why the federal government had to draw up a new budget for the coming year: the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. That's how it was in the Chancellery at lunchtime. That's how it was on television in the evening.

Wait a minute - isn't something missing?

The coalition has plugged its budget holes. But it doesn't say why they really arose. The financial shortfalls have been eliminated, but a moral deficit remains. Not the chancellor, not his deputy and not even the finance minister have said a word of remorse that it was they who got the country into this mess. Not Scholz, not Habeck and not even Lindner regretted that cuts, deletions, savings and higher energy costs are now necessary because the traffic light government passed an unconstitutional budget. The coalition has scraped together the money, but it has not earned the respect of the citizens.

The price for a serious miscalculation

On Wednesday, Scholz, Habeck and Lindner dictated nothing other than the price that Germans will have to pay for a serious miscalculation by their government. Such things can happen, who is faultless? But shouldn't the minimum correct speech at the beginning of the press conference have read something like this: "Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government presented a budget that was not compatible with the Basic Law. We proceeded to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time, but we made a mistake. We are sorry that this has now resulted in costs that you have to bear. We have endeavored to keep the costs as low as possible, to distribute them as fairly as possible and to use them in the most forward-looking way possible."

But that's not how it sounded at all.

Since the first day of the Karlsruhe ruling, every statement that the decision of the highest court is respected has been accompanied by the sentence: ... even if we don't understand it. The government is complying with the ruling with annoyed formalism, but not with an admission on the merits. It is easy to imagine that Olaf Scholz still cannot understand how a majority of the judges in Karlsruhe could actually come to a different legal conclusion than he did.

Unacceptable gamble with the reputation of the Constitutional Court

However, the traffic lights are not only confusing cause and effect when they now act as if they have done everything right, but unfortunately the Federal Constitutional Court has not recognized this. It is also playing an unacceptable game with the reputation of that court, which - in stark contrast to the Federal Government - still enjoys a great deal of respect.

At almost every appearance, it is said that the court has demanded a new budget from the government. Papers circulated within the coalition on Wednesday state that the government had to react to the Karlsruhe ruling. However, the higher petrol prices that now have to be paid were not imposed by the Constitutional Court. The higher electricity costs that are now being incurred are not included in the Karlsruhe judges' ruling. The burdens are all the result of an operation for which the coalition alone bears responsibility.

It was to be expected that the government would now try to boast about its new budget. On Wednesday evening on ARD, for example, the Chancellor rejected criticism of higher energy costs with the argument that the abolition of environmentally harmful subsidies had always been demanded. What he did not say was that it was precisely these subsidies that the SPD, Greens and FDP did not have the strength to abolish when they formed the government two years ago. This was one of the reasons why they resorted to the budget trick that has now failed. The deletion back then would have been a political achievement. The deletion today is a political patchwork.

Olaf Scholz was also asked on ARD whether he wanted to apologize. Of course he didn't want to.