CDU wants “new basic security” instead of citizens’ money

Citizens’ money has been a thorn in the side of the CDU since its introduction. The Christian Democrats have now presented their concept of basic security. It relies on more sanctions. But with whom could it be implemented?

“Just do it.” These three words come up in almost every interview with CDU General Secretary Carsten Linnemann. His “signature phrase,” so to speak. This Monday afternoon in the Konrad Adenauer House, Linnemann finally wants to prove that he took action, that he “just did it.” He worked on it for months, and now it is in place and has been approved by the party leadership: the CDU’s alternative concept to citizens’ money.

Now Linnemann can proudly explain the project to the capital’s journalists: It’s about a return to demanding and supporting. Anyone who can work must do so. These are commonplaces that the party likes to bring up again and again. At least the name is new: basic security instead of citizens’ money. Citizens’ money sounds as if every citizen is entitled to it. After an unconditional basic income, something the CDU can’t do anything with. Basic security actually sounds different: like a minimum, like the last possible resort and it also sounds a bit like the old Hartz IV.

sanctions against “Total objector”

A key point of the “New Basic Security” is stricter sanctions: “If a basic security recipient who is able to work refuses work that is reasonable for him without an objective reason, it should be assumed in the future that he is not in need.” Means: claim forfeited. The CDU calls these people “total refusers,” but their partners and children should not suffer from their behavior. How this will work is unclear.

The same fate threatens those who fail to show up for an appointment at the job center more than once in the future without any objective reason. They should also no longer receive any benefits for the time being. Social associations call this “clamak”. So-called total refusers should be looked for with a magnifying glass, says the chairman of the Joint Association, Ulrich Schneider. And these few would not refuse out of malice. Most of the time they can’t cope with their lives. Many are mentally ill. Sanctions would give them the final kick.

Cost: unclear

The social wing of the CDU has given its blessing to the “New Basic Security”. The chairman of the workers’ wing, Karl-Josef Laumann, is even on stage with Linnemann and defends the concept as balanced and appropriate.

It is striking that there are no concrete figures in the concept – neither about the amount of the so-called protective assets, the limit of which the CDU wants to lower, i.e. the savings that cannot be touched, nor about the actual amount of basic security. Just this much: “However, the historically high inflation rates of the last two years have led to disproportionate adjustments and thus problems of acceptance among the population. We want to prevent such extremes in the future.”

The FDP is at least not averse

But who does the CDU want to pursue this policy with in the future? The FDP at least finds overlap. Secretary General Bijan Djir-Sarai can’t help but take a swipe: The CDU’s move is astonishing, after all, they also voted for citizens’ money back then. However, it is right to talk about the future of the welfare state.

This shows that the CDU has identified one of the – admittedly many – sore points in the coalition when it comes to citizens’ money. Because, unlike the FDP, the Greens and SPD do not want to shake the concept of citizens’ money and its amount. The reaction to the CDU proposals is correspondingly harsh. SPD leader Lars Klingbeil accuses the Union of playing off working people against people who are not doing so well.

The idea of ​​reopening the issue is likely to cause sweat in the SPD, because the Hartz IV trauma seemed to have just been overcome with the introduction of citizens’ money. But if the current polls are confirmed in the next federal election, there will probably be no coalition without the Union.

In the end there will have to be a compromise

Even if General Secretary Linnemann doesn’t want to talk about red lines, the reform of citizens’ money is a central project of the next government for the CDU. So that means that in exploratory or even coalition negotiations you will have to answer the crucial question: “How do you feel about basic security?” don’t come over.

The CDU could play into its hands because many details in its basic security concept are unclear. This leaves room for possible compromises. There is a great risk of narrowing the corridor for possible coalition partners too much. The Union’s announcement that it wants to reverse the heating law is likely to make cooperation with the Greens more difficult. Wanting to abolish citizens’ money in its current form is misleading the SPD.

In the end, it probably won’t be enough for a “pure CDU” as Linnemann would like. Then it’s about finding compromises. It is questionable whether “just do it” will work.