ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

The election in Nordrhein-Westfalen and the baby-boomers in politics

It is well-known that Nordrhein-Westfalen has already fallen flat on its face several times with the budgets of the largest German state under the red/green state government coalition. The possible appreciation and assessment of the budget policy of this coalition government has often been in the press, as the subject of state constitutional control and resulting decisions. The supplementary budget was virtually cashed in.
The proceedings before the State Constitutional Court in Münster caused the opposition to lodge a complaint, although that of the national budget policy has failed to a much greater extent. And now this head of the opposition - the current Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen – is to stand in the state election on 13th May 2012 for the post of Prime Minister (or, if he is not elected, to become opposition leader of the NRW state government). Röttgen said in the press how much the debt left behind in the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen before the Landtag election was to be condemned, and that finally the baby-boomers, to which he belongs at the age of 46, will have to ensure that the situation is fundamentally changed.

Who can see to what extent the baby-boomers, whether they are the children of the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany as co-leading politicians of the coalition Government in Berlin, or others such as mummy’s favourite little angel in Berlin (Röttgen), it can only be said they have all contributed to the mismanagement of Germany being driven to the limit, because politically none of them has done anything about ever larger sections of the population becoming impoverished, even though they work, but also those who can no longer work for a living. Wage and salary poverty as well as poverty in old age, problems of the government with the Hartz IV reform, problems with the legal minimum wage and part-time wage, due partly to falling real wages since the early 90’s - with the mini-jobs and the lower income scale up to 22% in this period of loss of purchasing power, supplementary pensions for smaller groups, who would otherwise be impoverished.
Against this the baby-boomers use buzzwords, such as tax reduction law, where an increase for Hartz IV recipients is included (although hidden) in that € 10 per month are to be paid from 1st January 2013 onwards (probably as compensation for the cheating) in connection with the Hartz IV reform).
An increase in the Hartz-IV payments in this amount will hardly even be noticed by Hartz IV recipients, because € 10 are quickly swallowed up by inflation. € 10 is therefore simply an attempt to salve the conscience of the governing parties and opposition within regard to the committee consultation on the Hartz IV reform concerning the presentation of the statutory minimum subsistence level report, which in order to avoid charges was probably agreed between the opposition and coalition parties of the Federal Government and was only presented half a year after the Committee discussions and the final legal framing of the amended payment amounts for the Hartz IV reform. Otherwise the opposition might have put up some genuine opposition.
This attempt at salving the conscience should now stir up the forthcoming Landtag elections, because voters receiving Hartz IV had already become discontented by 2011. Since the results look like being as close as ever, every vote is important and so it seemed just the right time shower some largesse on Hartz IV recipients in the form of a tax reduction law, which promises a betterment for Hartz IV recipients: A law which is made for taxes - when Hartz IV recipients already have to pay so many taxes! And now this proposed tax reduction law is not going to come into force. It will be interesting to see how Hartz IV recipients react to this. In view of increasing concerns, a modified boost for Hartz IV was quickly proclaimed, on average in steps of € 8 monthly (from 1.1.2013 and also 1.1.2014); so now in time-lag an increase of € 16 instead of € 10, but only from 1st January 2014.
Hartz IV recipients should remember: First cheating by the parties in the year 2011 – this should not be forgotten –; now election give-aways, because it is quite unusual to anticipate indexing before it comes into effect (end of 2012), when the 9th subsistence level report still has to be presented in November 2012. Since the Agenda 2010, Hartz IV recipients have had to accept cuts by the SPD, and have enjoyed no representation of their interests in the 2011 Reform on the part of the popular parties. So watch out for the election poster deceptions during the 2012 NRW election and the Bundestag election to follow in 2013! All Hartz IV recipients should also note that major changes are taking place, irrespective of the various election announcements. Since recently, the entire provision rate package has been pending legal review, with the support of the Alliance for Democracy, with several social courts – the Berlin Social Court recently submitted the matter, together with the grounds to the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe as part of a so-called judicial review appeal (as also intended by the Alliance for Democracy).
Firstly we would like to recommend to Hartz IV recipients that they spoil their ballot papers, so that they are recorded statistically as invalid votes, so that this is seen as a direct rebuff by the parties. Because this is the only way to treat this unacceptable and inadequate popular representation by the government and the opposition (which failed to require the submission of the subsistence level report at the appropriate time)! The short-term increase in the rates for electioneering reasons cannot give grounds for any other opinion, because due to the intended expansion of the rescue packages by means of German ESM legislation (the Bundestag intends to decide on this on 25.5.12), extremely adverse developments must be anticipated for the future – ESM rescue package commitments (in Germany alone) are increasing the level of poverty in our country. In the event that supported countries collapse in the near future, all Hartz IV recipients will then end up with a crash quota of only a small proportion measured at current rates, but will have no earned income after the currency reform and will therefore be just as adversely affected as all pension recipients who are paid under the German pension insurance scheme and on the basis of statutory civil service pensions.

All this has taken place with the cooperation of Mr. Röttgen, who now claims in the course of press interviews that the generation of the baby-boomers, to which he belongs, is predestined to pave the way for a solution of the debt situation, and even to have a plan which allows him to pay off these debts. But no one can ever repay these debts. Not only all Hartz IV recipients, but also all pensioners, should demonstrate on 25th May 2012 in front of the German Bundestag, in the same way as this appears necessary in the view of the interest representatives of this group, to put an end to further impoverishment, and to force the members of the German Bundestag to reconsider how they intend to vote, and at best to change the minds of parliamentarians to come to the best possible solution for these groups; Moreover, they should not vote for the popular parties in the forthcoming state and national elections, or should spoil their ballot papers. Further more: In the Hartz IV reform the social insurance obligation for recipients has been abolished and the benefits will then be paid from tax revenues after means testing; for such predominantly tax-financed benefits, a reduction to the respective relevant subsistence level must be allowed for, because the Federal Constitutional Court decided on 7th December 2010 that payments could be reduced just to the relevant minimum subsistence level. This must be taken into account in view of rising poverty levels, and it means: Hartz IV recipients of today can no longer count on the fact that amounts currently paid (which do not even correspond to the current minimum subsistence level) will be maintained in the future.
Now, because the social security obligation has been abolished, Hartz-IV payments are no longer bound to any legal basis or principle – they correspond to the rates from the time before the Agenda 2010 – this is therefore simply a deterioration of the situation, particularly for younger Hartz IV recipients, who must remain in this predicament for a long time. Although with the Agenda 2010, the betterment of Hartz IV recipients was theoretically achieved, the payments were not increased at that time due to empty national coffers (political mismanagement); the betterment lay only in the fact that means testing was not applied. The current Federal Government has however reintroduced this awkward situation, to avoid the transfer of contributions and to place the burden on the shoulders of future generations.

The state government of NRW has just failed again to pass a budget, mainly because of the high level of new debt. So nothing has been achieved, the catastrophic situation was rather plunged deeper into catastrophe by the implementation of the ESM law intended for 25th May 2012. It is therefore questionable as to how the generation of baby-boomers is predestined to change anything about the debt situation. Wishful thinking at the state level in NRW, wishful thinking at the national level, which is contradicted by the facts.
There are no Bundestag elections scheduled for 2012 - unless the coalition government collapses. In the year 2012, the main task is first of all to stultify active voters at the state level, in this case those in NRW. Because ultimately, it is totally irrelevant whether NRW is governed by a Mr. Norbert Röttgen (CDU) or a Mrs. Hannelore Kraft (SPD).
The better result – or to put it better from the point of view of politicians – would be a grand coalition, which is also the objective at the national level as the best solution for guaranteeing political survival, because then no more counter-arguments will be needed to justify the political position (and so-called opposition) to the people of the country – this would then create a transfer union for politics itself. This approximation of the parties is now only a matter of political survival and further mismanagement in the form of new debts.
So: No matter what dreams Mr. Röttgen or Mrs. Kraft may have, these dreams are no use to the state of NRW. The debt crisis cannot be stopped, all other reforms at state level depend on money, and the coffers have long since been empty. Unfortunately, these dreams are again just examples of how politics must first become interested in its own self-preservation, and the benefits for the people of NRW (in this case) remain insignificant. The time is 15 minutes after 12. We must wake up! This situation cannot be tolerated any longer!
When even the Vice-President of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, Mr. Ferdinand Kirchhof (CDU) says in his statement as a politician in the “Welt” that with the increasing volume of the rescue package, the situation is from his point of view no longer supportable, then it is questionable why he on the other hand, in his position as a (politically reliable) judge of the Constitutional Court and Vice-President of the Federal Constitutional Court by party quota, then approves the rescue package act.
If important and general procedures are specified here, which can also be regarded as accepted procedure and even as inflexible and restricting corsets, then it must be clear: Nothing much more will change politically, because if a country has declined to the extent that it can afford cow-towing judges, who talk political correctness and then express contrary opinions in the press, it is clear that German offices have no further democratic function. It should rather be the case that a judge takes his own stand against decisions desired by politics by virtue of his office, and does not have to use his prominence in order to appear in the press.
If we now assume that Kirchhof also states his opinion, as given in the press, in an already-announced constitutional complaint against a German ESM law, then there is at least hope that this law brings about no ratification of the ESM and the Euro rescue madness to the tune of billions and trillions is finally stopped. And this would also benefit Germany in the fight against increasing interest risk rates.
Instead of the current 1.7% for German government bonds, 5.7% will have to be paid for Euro-bonds, which Germany would have to pay itself. This means: for the national budget, this would give a current nominal interest burden of between € 37 to € 38 billion annually (2011). The ratio of the additional interest at a rate of 5.7%, which is derived from all risk interest rates of all Euro countries, results from the increase in the previous average interest rate burden of the German national budget and a sudden increase in the ratio from the current 1.7% to 5.7%. This 3.3x increase does not (yet) even include German rescue package contributions (in particular those resulting from cash contribution obligations to be fulfilled). This increase has the effect that the deficit criteria will be more than exceeded, together with the limits of the debt brake – as it has already been by rescue package contributions in economic and human terms. An absurdity that the opposition parties have already shown themselves willing to share responsibility for this violation of the Constitution, particularly because this is not possible at the moment; An absurdity also because of the inevitable consequences, the drastic increase in the tax burden on the national budget (from nearly € 40 billion to over € 100 billion) and the resulting drastic increase in poverty, and above all poverty amongst the elderly, because this plan can only be made to work with pension cuts of 40%. And even then no restructuring can take place in the event of the collapse of the Euro (which was actually impossible even from the very beginning).
This only goes to prove: All rescue package plans are there only in order to circumvent these otherwise unresolvable effects by means of an unprecedented lie about debts which have been actually incurred by means of subsidiary liabilities, and which do not actually appear in the national accounts as debts. It would have been more realistic to pass on debts by means of loans (the interest rate for Germany would have been relatively low, even if not guaranteed for the future) and use the funds received for the support of supported countries. This would however have revealed the actual situation in which the German national budget (not the German economy) now finds itself. Namely a bankruptcy situation through interest and other debt charges (e.g. credit default insurance) and the impoverishment and enslavement of the people, because they not only have to come up with these costs, but in view of the overall situation must also make allowance for inflation and significantly higher taxes.

Only recently, Angela Merkel pointed out that the financial markets would not have followed suit with the slight downgrading of the rating agencies for many banks in many countries, either in Italy, France, Germany, the national banks, etc. and also many countries in the European area, etc., and that on the contrary, and irrespective of this new rating situation higher interest risk rates could hardly be required in general. The markets would then have calmed down, but within a very short time, following the deterioration of the situation in Spain and Italy, the interest risk rates for long-term bonds have risen by one percentage point in the three-year range for long terms, for example over 11 years, the interest rates are now between 6 and 7%. And anything in excess of 7% is considered no longer affordable. The ‘sound barrier’ is considered to be at the level of 6%; from this point, the heads of government within the European Monetary Union are likely to become particularly nervous again (and are already trembling). Investors are suddenly holding back from the purchase of government bonds. How short-sighted was the assessment of politics in this case, and in particular that of the German Chancellor. It must have been obvious to her that this self-calming effect would not persist even in the medium or long term. Mr. Röttgen and Mrs. Kraft will also notice that their freedom of action remains limited - and this says something about how the Federal Government keeps the governments of the German states politically hamstrung, rather than to help them onto a healthy footing. In the assessment of American rating agencies, such as Fitch for example, NRW is no longer in the top tier, while the Federal Government however still gets top marks, which it does not deserve (see the insolvency of Lehmann Brothers, which still enjoyed the top rating until two days before its crash, like Germany at the moment). Mr. Röttgen is now pursuing the mistaken belief that he can bring the ratings of his state to the same top level. He thereby however overlooks the fact that more objective rating agencies, such as Egan-Jones Rating Company or Dagong Global Credit Rating have long since downgraded Germany three levels below the top rating. He has therefore violated the long-accepted investment rule of going by the worst possible value – but of course this is what politics is all about. In the opinion of the Alliance for Democracy, the nation and all the federal states, including NRW, are in a state of delayed insolvency/bankruptcy – both can only be continued for only a short while by further delay and damage to creditors (taxpayers and their impoverishment), which will come to an immediate end when Greece or another major Euro country (Spain, Italy) crashes, and with it the Euro.