Why only one FDP politician voted for the debt brake at the time

Mr. Toncar, the Ministry of Finance is currently celebrating your 15th anniversary Debt brake. On May 29, 2009, the Bundestag decided to introduce it.

I remember well. That was a Friday morning. And I voted yes.

You were the only one FDP-MP who voted for the introduction of the debt brake at the time. The vast majority of the Liberal group abstained, three voted against.

That’s right, for that you have to remember the context. The debt brake was a proposal that came from the second Federalism Commission. This commission should actually de-encrust and reorganize the entire financial relationships between the federal and state governments and create more transparency. That didn’t work – there was only the idea of ​​a debt brake. The FDP therefore said: “That’s not enough for us, we’re abstaining.”

When I voted, I thought to myself: If there is a chance in my life to set clear rules and effectively limit debt, then I have to take part.

Only you had a different opinion.

At the time, at the age of 29, I was the youngest member of the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag. Financial sustainability was important to me: not taking on too much debt, not overloading the social systems. These were the reasons why I started getting involved politically in the first place. When I voted, I thought to myself: If there is a chance in my life to set clear rules and effectively limit debt, then I have to take part – even against my group if necessary. I therefore voted yes with a clear conscience. And I have never regretted it.

Are you still being asked about it today?

Even very often. When I tell you that I was actually the only MP from my group who agreed, it is usually a big surprise. Because the FDP is now acting as a particularly strong defender of the debt brake. But it has to be fair to say that the concerns of others at the time were not wrong. To date, it is not clear enough who finances what: the federal government or the states? This constantly causes problems. And things are getting worse rather than better. We therefore continue to urgently need a fundamental reform of federal-state financial relations.

Has anyone from your party ever apologized? According to the motto: You were right. We should all have voted yes.

No. But that wasn’t necessary either. Even back then, everyone accepted that the youngest MP was pushing for this rule to actually come about. Again: The FDP did not abstain because it did not want the debt brake, but because a very important part of the actually promised reform had been ruined. But I do get honest recognition for my voting behavior. Til today.

The debt rule has a major influence on how our state functions and even what understanding of government we have.

So would you advise younger MPs that sometimes it’s worth voting for your beliefs against the group?

Basically, as a member of a faction you should always be a team player. But there can be questions that are so closely linked to one’s own political life that, if necessary, one is prepared to vote differently than one’s own group. For me personally, the debt brake was and is such a fundamental question. We’re seeing this again in all the debates we’re having about this in the coalition and beyond. The debt rule has a major influence on how our state functions and even what understanding of government we have. And I would always rate something like that more highly than other decisions in day-to-day political business.

From today’s perspective, the voting behavior back then seems very strange. The FDP is now something of a last bastion against reforming the debt brake in its decided form.

This is really surprising. It wasn’t foreseeable back then. There was Peer Steinbrück, a finance minister from the SPD, who fought hard to ensure that we had clearer rules for limiting debt. Even among the Greens, who are now the harshest critics of the debt brake, there were some back then, such as Winfried Kretschmann, who defined sustainability not only ecologically but also financially. And of course you shouldn’t forget that 2009 was a special year.

A year of crisis.

Because of the financial crisis, we had to take on significant debt. For the 2010 budget, the government draft provided 80 billion euros for new loans. 80 billion! That was an unimaginable value at the time. Most people agreed: After the crisis, we have to bring expenses back into line with income. The debt brake emerged from this insight. And it is precisely this insight that is missing today. The opponents of the debt brake act as if we could simply carry on as before. As if we just had to let Santa Claus out of the closet, who would use new debts to ensure that all wishes could continue to be fulfilled. I think that’s an illusion.

But criticism of the debt brake does not only come from the Greens and the SPD. Economists have also recently made a few suggestions for reform.

One could consider whether we could repay loans from the corona pandemic a little more slowly than originally planned once the debt ratio has fallen below 60 percent. But I have the feeling that some of these reform discussions are actually about fundamentally weakening the debt brake. I think that’s dangerous. Ultimately, our problem is not that the state has too little money available.

The investment backlog in Germany has structural reasons.

What do you mean?

The investment backlog in Germany has structural reasons. For example, we simply don’t have the people who can do everything at the same time: build 400,000 apartments, renovate the existing buildings, build wind farms and gas power plants, maintain roads and railways. This all has to be planned and built by someone. But we only have around half as many trainees in the trades today as we did in 1997. A dramatic development. And I won’t change that by reducing the debt brake.

You have already mentioned the debt ratio. Despite the pandemic years and the energy crisis, Germany is already close to the EU target of 60 percent with 63.7 percent in 2023. Critics of the debt brake therefore say that Germany is unnecessarily putting economic shackles on itself.

Thanks to the comparatively moderate national debt, we save billions of euros in interest expenses every year. The US debt ratio, for example, is twice as high. The USA therefore has to spend around two and a half percent of its annual gross domestic product just on interest. We have favorable financing conditions and can therefore certainly spend tens of billions of dollars in additional money every year on investments, education and other things. In addition, the stability of the euro also depends on German financial strength. We must not jeopardize all of this.

Will the debt brake also see its 25th birthday?

I’m sure she will. And if I have my way, she’ll be in good health.