A majority of parliament actually wants more money for the army. But it is unclear where the billions will come from. Is a tax increase the only option left?
Politics in combat mode: Next week, parliament will decide whether the army will receive four billion more.
Alex Kühni / VBS
The sadder the message, the more important the beautiful images.
On Monday, the state government invited the parties to the Bernerhof, the magnificent headquarters of the finance department. The only item on the agenda: the hefty savings proposals from the expert group led by the former head of the finance administration, Serge Gaillard. The situation is serious, the federal government is soon facing deficits in the billions. That is why the Federal Council wants to prepare the ground for the upcoming cuts.
Not all participants were happy about this exchange. “A bizarre staging,” said one person who was sitting at the table. After the talks, however, Federal President Viola Amherd and Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter appeared before the press together in demonstrative unity, speaking of the “sovereignty” of the country (Keller-Sutter) and the “constructive atmosphere” of the talks (Amherd).
Sounds like a good government. But the two Federal Councillors have been engaged in a secret exchange of blows over army finances for months. Amherd leaves little doubt that in her opinion the rearmament should happen more quickly. Keller-Sutter stoically points to the tight federal budget. Gaillard’s savings proposals only exacerbate the conflict. As early as next Friday, the state government could present a savings package on this basis that will really hurt.
Until recently, Amherd had played down the importance of the expert report. In mid-August, before the final text was available, she made it clear in the National Council’s Security Policy Committee how low she thought its chances of political success were.
“I am convinced that this group of experts will come up with many good suggestions for savings, but I also have the feeling that not one of them will get through parliament,” the defense minister said, according to the confidential minutes of the meeting, which were made available to the “NZZ am Sonntag.” “Wherever you want or need to make savings, there is always massive opposition and unholy alliances.”
However, this does not prevent the Minister of Defense from registering her interest early on in case there is some money left over at the end. Sources close to the Federal Council say that Amherd has suggested to the government that any savings resulting from the expert group’s proposals should be immediately diverted to the army.
Where do I save – and how much?
But now it is Parliament’s turn. And the situation there is quite confusing.
Over the last two years, the councils have voted now one way, now the other, quickly allocating money for the military, only to then put the brakes on it again. Next week, the National Council will probably agree to an increase in the army budget by four billion francs, spread over the next four years. The SVP, the FDP and the Centre Party agree on this. But the bourgeois unity quickly comes to an end when the question arises as to where the federal government should take these billions.
“People preach about saving, but want to arm the army without knowing exactly where the money is going to come from,” noted SP co-president Cédric Wermuth. “But now the conservatives are also feeling the limits of their financial policy. They realize that they cannot resolve this contradiction.” The whole exercise ultimately leads to “all areas of government being destroyed, but the army growing unbelievably.”
Martin Candinas, who has been in the National Council for almost thirteen years, is an extremely experienced parliamentarian. And as a centrist security politician, he knows what a delicate business can handle and when a package is in danger of falling apart. He spent the whole week exchanging views with politicians on both sides. “Now it’s all about keeping the ball in the air,” says the Graubünden native.
This means: first speak the means, then raise the money.
“The most important thing is that the increase in the army budget is accepted,” said Candinas. “We will only settle the financing in the next round, when the differences between the councils are resolved.”
At the moment, a proposal in the upper house has a chance of success that would benefit the army by allocating the cantons’ share of federal taxes and development aid. But it is unclear how far this idea will go. It is rather unlikely that a majority of the Council of States would simply forgo money for their cantons.
And just last Wednesday, the Council of States rejected a radical cut in development aid. “The discussion about development cooperation was the litmus test,” says FDP President and Council of States member Thierry Burkart. “It was not passed.”
Final stop referendum
The liberal politician is increasingly concerned about the political maneuverability of the federal government and parliament. “Politics is failing in its central task: setting priorities,” said Burkart. The geopolitical situation has changed, but financial resources remain limited. Simply carrying on as before is not an option. “If politics does not manage to change priorities, it will give up the leadership of the state and be content with the role of accountant Nötzli.”
If we fail to provide the necessary funds for security by “reprioritizing state tasks,” “then we face a tax increase at the expense of the citizens,” says the FDP party leader.
So in the end higher taxes for defense? The center has suggested a temporary increase in VAT. But the largest party is rejecting the idea. “A tax increase is out of the question for the SVP, period,” says party president Marcel Dettling. “Yes, we have to invest in security, but then we will get this money from culture, asylum and development aid.” The SVP is not participating in any of the other plans.
Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter was also always skeptical about tax increases. Recently, however, the Federal Council has signaled its sympathy for this path, which ends with a referendum. Such a referendum would be extremely difficult to win. But a vote would at least have one advantage for all parties involved: the simmering conflict between the finance and defense departments, between Karin Keller-Sutter and Viola Amherd, would finally be resolved.
An article from the «»
