CDU/CSU and SPD have reached an agreement on a substantial debt package, which includes 500 billion euros for infrastructure and relaxed debt regulations. Concerns arise over the impact on financial health and potential inflation, as well as the effectiveness of a special fund for defense versus infrastructure. Critics argue that this decision undermines fiscal responsibility and prioritizes temporary fixes over necessary reforms, potentially leading to a significant increase in national debt and interest payments in the coming years.
Analyzing the Recent Debt Package Decision
On Tuesday evening, CDU/CSU and SPD reached a consensus on an extensive debt package, even prior to engaging in detailed coalition discussions. How does this decision impact the political landscape?
In my opinion, the four elements of this package raise significant concerns and are fundamentally flawed. This includes the introduction of 500 billion euros in new debt designated for infrastructure, the relaxation of the debt brake for defense expenditures, the easing of the debt brake regulations for federal states, and the establishment of a permanent expert commission to facilitate state investments, effectively circumventing the debt brake.
Concerns About Infrastructure Funding and State Financial Health
When it comes to deteriorating infrastructure, I have consistently opposed addressing the issue through a so-called special fund. Infrastructure is a shared responsibility among the federal government, states, and municipalities. The federal government has sufficient budgetary flexibility to invest in infrastructure initiatives. However, many issues arise at the municipal level, which a special fund cannot resolve. Municipalities face financial constraints as they are burdened with social expenditures mandated by the federal and state governments without adequate funding. This structural flaw demands comprehensive reform rather than temporary fixes like special funds.
The federal states often argue they lack sufficient financial flexibility.
I consider this claim to be overstated. The debt brake for federal states has not been effectively enforced. Prior to 2020, a transitional phase was in place, followed by numerous exceptions during the pandemic. The debt brake was intended to prevent states from falling into a debt crisis. Now, financially struggling states are being given the chance to increase their debts once more, sending us back to the situation we faced before the introduction of the debt brake in 2009.
There is a pressing need for increased defense spending.
National defense is a core responsibility of any government and should be funded through current tax revenues. Additional funding is only warranted in two scenarios: during wartime, which Germany is not currently experiencing, or when there is a credible threat of war that necessitates rapid rearmament. A special fund would be appropriate in this case to mobilize resources quickly. However, establishing a special fund for infrastructure is a misguided choice.
How much will defense expenditures rise?
Currently, defense spending is around 1% of GDP, which is about 45 billion euros. If we aim to increase this to 3% of GDP, it could reach up to 135 billion euros annually, with any amount exceeding 1% of GDP—approximately 90 billion euros—excluded from the debt brake. The downside of this arrangement is that it creates additional budgetary space for other expenditures, estimated at around 8 billion euros in 2025, potentially diverting funds for subsidies or social transfers. Furthermore, while a special fund would have a defined timeframe, the 1% rule appears to have no expiration date.
Has Friedrich Merz, the likely new Chancellor, betrayed voters with this massive debt package?
Indeed, Merz has not upheld his commitments. The CDU has suggested it would address concerns related to the debt brake for federal states. However, the easing of the debt brake for defense and the creation of a special fund for infrastructure clearly represent a deviation from these promises, particularly regarding the introduction of investment guidelines through an expert commission.
Has the Union been outmaneuvered by the Social Democrats?
By hastily agreeing to this debt package before substantive coalition negotiations, the Union has certainly undermined its position to advocate for a more market-friendly economic policy. Crucial structural reforms are once again sidelined.
What implications does this package have for the federal budget?
Preliminary estimates suggest that national debt could surge by approximately 30 percentage points, exceeding 90% of GDP within the next decade—a critical threshold. Additionally, interest expenditures are set to rise significantly. With a 2.5% interest rate on ten-year federal bonds, interest payments could reach 250 billion euros in ten years. Should the rate increase to 4%, this figure could escalate to 400 billion euros, translating to 40 billion euros in annual interest costs. Such a scenario is unsustainable and will greatly hinder the federal government’s capacity to operate effectively.
How do you view the growth impact of this package?
Its primary effect is to increase debt levels. The cyclical impact remains ambiguous, as a large portion of the funds will likely be directed toward consumption. While urgent repairs, such as fixing a school roof, are necessary, they do not contribute to economic growth, innovation, or technological progress. The students’ educational outcomes remain unchanged from such repairs, which are not growth-enhancing.
Could the new debts also exacerbate inflation?
This outcome is quite plausible. The capabilities of the defense and construction industries are limited, meaning increased demand might initially drive up prices. Defense and construction firms are aware that substantial funds are now available, which raises concerns that this package could lead to elevated inflation rates.
What would your ideal debt package look like?
I would have advocated for a special fund solely for the Bundeswehr. All other expenditures should have been financed through the current federal budget, potentially by reallocating funds from transfers to bolster state investments. This strategy does not need to compromise social benefits. Notably, subsidies as a percentage of GDP have doubled since 2017, presenting considerable opportunities for savings.
The Deutsche Bundesbank recently proposed a reform to the debt brake. What are your thoughts on it?
The Bundesbank’s suggestion to relax the debt brake for increased investment spending is neither necessary nor prudent. Furthermore, it raises definitional issues regarding what constitutes an investment versus consumption. The proposal appears overly complex, likely due to efforts to moderate its president, Joachim Nagel. Historically, the Bundesbank has advocated for clear fiscal rules, yet the new president seems increasingly involved in political matters. Ultimately, it feels as though the Bundesbank has shifted its stance.
Stay connected with Berlin economic correspondent René Höltschi on X and LinkedIn, and follow Frankfurt economic correspondent Michael Rasch on X, LinkedIn, and Xing.