The so-called economists expect German gross domestic product (GDP) to grow significantly higher in 2026 than previously expected. Economic output will “increase significantly again for the first time since 2022” – by 1.3 percent, according to the annual report from the Economic Advisory Council on Wednesday. At the same time, the experts warn urgently about the high expenditure burden on state finances, especially due to the significantly increased defense spending.
Sandra Maischberger talks about exactly this in her show with the chairwoman of the Wirtschaftsweise, Monika Schnitzer, and with the SPD politician Karl Lauterbach. So what would this government have to do, Maischberger wants to know, to keep a deficit in the next budget as small as possible?
Economists are calling for drastic savings and the dismantling of tax breaks. Schnitzer begins with the example of the recently conceived mother's pension. "That costs us five billion a year. If you wanted to catch that again, you would have to do it now, before the mothers have it in their pension notice," she says. And five billion is a good start.
A topic that an SPD man naturally likes, because the proposal for a mother's pension came from the CSU. Lauterbach says accordingly: "I personally don't think much of the mother's pension. Yes, because it is distributed by watering can. But it has now been agreed." Schnitzer reminds us that increasing defense spending is largely financed through debt. This drives up interest expenses. She advocates gradually reducing the loan financing of defense spending, otherwise there would be a financing gap of around 300 billion euros in the budget by 2040.
“The traffic light broke because Christian Lindner was unable to raise three and a half or four billion”
Schnitzer throws out the figure of 40 billion that needs to be saved. Lauterbach frowns: "The traffic light broke because Christian Lindner wasn't able to raise three and a half or four billion. So that's a huge effort." He recalls the CDU's desire to reduce the electricity tax and says: "Then they would have had to say we can't do that with the mother's pension."
Maischberger points out to Lauterbach that the reduction in electricity tax is in the coalition agreement and is therefore also an SPD election promise. Schnitzer laughs: "You can only keep promises if you have the money for them. At this point you have to be honest and say: It's not possible."
From their point of view, the coalition parties have missed the opportunity to say: If you save something there, then we will save something here too. “Instead, we gave each other something instead of taking something from each other,” says Schnitzer. “But we have to gradually get into the mode of saving something.”
Maischberger is trying the topic of pensions at 63. An election campaign topic for the SPD, the CDU would like to delete it. That's why Lauterbach is serious: "We always say that performance has to be worth it. The only performance that isn't worth it at the moment is if someone has paid in for 40 or 48 years. Then they should lose the two years that they can retire earlier. I am of the opinion that this performance should also be rewarded."
And now Lauterbach opens up a sensitive topic and asks: "Why don't we start making savings for civil servants? 71.5 percent of their last income as a pension, that's simply completely disproportionate." Applause, perhaps the strongest of the evening. Schnitzer says: "When it comes to social insurance, we see that we are heading towards a huge problem. Care is an important issue. The baby boomers are not yet of the age that requires care, and there is already a hole in the fund. Expenditures were decided that were disproportionate. You can't come up with a new, small tax every year to compensate for this. If we don't want to finance our defense through debt, we have to have a transparent discussion about what we can afford and what we can't."
The discussion is gaining momentum, but also because Lauterbach is immediately entering a dead end that will be difficult for him to get out of. He says: "The elephant in the room is the high defense spending. We have to react to that, otherwise we'll get out of hand. Then our health system," Lauterbach continues. "We could easily save 20 or 30 billion euros per year in the healthcare system - with better quality. Unnecessary operations. Hospitals that don't have the expertise at all. Medicines that hardly do anything but are super expensive."
“Weren’t you once Minister of Health?”
Maischberger interrupts him: “Weren’t you once health minister?” Lauterbach opens his eyes wide: “I also initiated many of these things.” But Maischberger follows up: “And weren’t you on the expert commission for the other health ministers before you?” Lauterbach gets into a tailspin: "Yes, but I've always worked on these construction sites. I've always made suggestions for savings while improving quality."
It's going to be bizarre.
Lauterbach repeats himself: “The special thing is: I can get better and it will be cheaper.” Maischberger has to laugh: "That sounds great. Too good to be true." But Lauterbach doesn’t give up: “But that’s how it is.” Now he finally diverts attention to another topic. "We have environmentally damaging subsidies. The kerosene tax, the diesel privilege, the company car privilege. You could cut 20 billion from all of these subsidies. That would be good for the climate and we would have money." Now he receives gentle applause from the audience. And even Schnitzer nods in agreement, albeit with a telltale smile.
Since economics and politicians agree that there have to be cuts, Maischberger asks: How do such cuts, which hurt people, come to be reflected at the ballot box?
“We have to treat people like adults”
Schnitzer says: "Our concern is to create transparency. If you put these things on the table, then a lot of people understand and see it. Satisfying people with populist promises doesn't help. At some point they see that none of this works. We have to take people seriously and treat them like adults." A terrible accusation against politicians, because it means, conversely, that the people in the country are not taken seriously.
Schnitzer suggests giving citizens the choice of how the money should be spent. Schnitzer asks: "Do we want to have functioning bridges or that the train runs on time? Do we want the children to get a better education or for the daycare centers to function?" Now it's too good to be true for her too.
