ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

Steinbrück’s earnings – Main income

Mr. Steinbrück, formerly state and Federal Finance Minister, member of parliament and Chancellor candidate of the SPD, earned € 1.25 million for presentations between 2009 and 2012, according to BILD. This was calculated by a so-called independent auditor engaged by Steinbrück – why was this not commissioned by the opposition or the people? It then emerged that two presentations had not been properly disclosed to the parliament – one presentation on 13th October 2011 and one on 19th October 2011 “were according to the records not reported in line with the code of conduct for members of the German Bundestag”, as is stated in the report published on Steinbrück’s Internet site. Perhaps the dates had disappeared from his short-term memory, for it is said that Steinbrück thinks very quickly, as close friend Helmut Schmidt once said of the newcomer to politics, and it can therefore be assumed that someone who thinks so quickly does not think at all! But this changes nothing about the total amount of income, which is somehow also a catastrophe.

Since BILD reported about his wondering colleagues, the matter has thrown up one question after another, including this one: Why does Steinbrück receive money from the taxpayer if he, even if unpaid, and these amounted to 237, earns so much money from such presentations that he makes a perfectly good living. His main source of income thus becomes only a “job on the side”, which is inappropriate, and even when Steinbrück says that this money “goes directly to the benefit of social institutions, such as the “Tafel Monheim”, the family advice service “Pro Familia” and the Jazz Museum.” These institutions can hardly have received € 1.25 million, so who else received something, and how much of it remained in Steinbrück’s pocket? Who else will emerge and claim in Steinbrück’s justification to have received something, purely charity, of course. It also opens up the question of why a politician may donate anything to anyone in his constituency? Donations bring voters, create good memories, so the money serves the favourable political climate, and could almost be considered as a bribe, in the sense that should there still be Steinbrück sceptics in the constituency, an appropriate donation may help them come to the right decision at the ballot box.

Basically, this miserable disclosure leaves us wondering how many other deputies, members of the Council, Ministers and Chancellors make such earnings “on the side”, and how much, and what these sometimes huge sums are or will be used for. And all this since the introduction of the Euro – and whether all these persons actually gave the money away in donations. Is it therefore surprising that the parliament has for years not been prepared to ratify the UN Convention against corruption?

The Black-Yellow coalition, which for years has fought against such and similar disclosures, and the Greens, are now also calling for models for new regulations, which will have to be discussed from the parliamentary and legal aspects. Even if the battle is already raging, the Alliance for Democracy asks whether enough thought has been given to the matter, because though it is basically about this income in this case, it is in general about the requirement that all income should be itemised and declared accurately. The noise of battle should not distract us from the fact that in the end, this results in a solution which can still be circumvented by the members, and which although it sounds strict, is completely ineffective.

The Alliance for Democracy proposes a basic list, which would be accessible online for all members, in which the date, the event, the amount received and its intended purpose must be entered. These lists would be able to be viewed by any interested party, totalled annually and provided to the respective tax authorities.

The sense and the value of such presentations could also be subject to dispute. It is almost laughable if the ex-Finance Minister Steinbrück speaks about the security of the Euro, at a time when it hardly worth a farthing any more. When he was making one of his presentations, for which Mr. Steinbrück incidentally is also prepared to let his parliamentary duties go hang, as he himself admitted, to the Swiss “Efficiency Club”, the ladies and gentlemen there must have been extremely angry (and/or polite), since they know how much the decline of the Euro is adversely affecting the stability of the Franc. In this respect it is questionable who these presentations serve, and the only answer to this question can be: They are Mr. Steinbrück, who in addition to the remuneration which is paid for by the taxpayer paid, such as salary, pension, care and health insurance, is also paid for chatting to lobbyists. This makes him, and the entire party ranks, who probably all act in the same way, implausible and no longer electable.

This must involve the following consequences: Whoever earns so much per year “on the side” should receive a reduced member’s salary, or none at all. Every unemployed person who earns money from casual employment has this deducted from his unemployment allowance, and each of these unemployed could work again, members of parliament earn nothing, ever. This means: A secondary income accounting centre, which forms the basis for the reconciliation of such earnings against members’ remunerations. The Alliance for Democracy will check to what extent the applicable law can be changed.