IMFS Distinguished Professor Helmut Siekmann sees constitutional concerns with the draft budget agreement

According to IMFS Distinguished Professor Helmut Siekmann, the latest agreement on the draft federal budget raises constitutional concerns. The constitutional law expert's objections relate to both the fundamental use of global underspending (GMA) and the lack of safeguards for the amount of the assumed “floor” of appropriations that experience shows have not been spent.

“It is the task of the democratic legislature to make the necessary cuts itself and not to leave them to the executive. Spending decisions must not be delegated to third parties, including the government. However, this is done by budgeting substantial global reductions in expenditure, which only have to be generated when the budget is implemented,” said Siekmann. Parliament must have control over the actual financial conduct of the state through its approvals. According to Siekmann, the use of GMA is therefore generally problematic. “The control of state financial management by parliament, audit offices and the public is at least made more difficult, if not thwarted, by the budgeting of global underspending,” Siekmann continued.

Last Friday, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) and Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) agreed, among other things, to reduce the GMA of 17 billion euros originally estimated in the 2025 draft budget to twelve billion euros. However, such a GMA merely sets a target for further savings efforts across all departments, without specifying where they actually have to be made. In the past 20 years, the GMA has never exceeded eight billion euros, but often only a fraction of this amount has been budgeted.

Siekmann, who has already examined the use of GMA in detail in an expert report on the 2022 state budget in Thuringia (IMFS Working Paper 173), sees their systematic classification as “correction items” or “negative expenditure” as problematic: “Depending on the individual design, the constitutional budget principles of truth and clarity, factual specificity and periodicity, i.e. cash effectiveness, are impaired”. According to Siekmann, a precise determination of the values would therefore be necessary: “Without empirical backing, they are ‘taken’ and therefore constitutionally questionable.” In addition, the Federal Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasized that parliamentary budgetary responsibility is one of the most noble rights of parliament and is closely linked to the principle of democracy. According to Siekmann, the approval of individual expenditures, but also the decision on necessary savings, is one of the most noble rights, but also duties of parliament.

IMFS Working Paper No. 173 (PDF)