It sounds quite different from the CDU/CSU. Steffen Bilger, chief whip of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, clearly rejects any further loosening.
He says he considers “a further loosening of the debt brake with the aim of enabling even more debt to clearly be the wrong path.” From the CDU/CSU's point of view, the state's capacity to act arises not from new debt, but from sound economic management.
Bilger also warns of rising interest rates. Germany is already taking on historic levels of debt for infrastructure and defense. Interest payments could rise to around 80 billion euros per year by 2030. That money would then be missing elsewhere.
Merz's earlier decision weighs on the CDU/CSU
Still, the mood within the CDU/CSU is not entirely unified. Some could in principle imagine a more flexible debt brake – but not now.
Many CDU and CSU members of parliament are still carrying a political burden: before his election as chancellor, Merz, with the majority of the old Bundestag, loosened the debt rules. This made 500 billion euros available for infrastructure and, in theory, unlimited funds for defense.
During the election campaign, Merz had still defended the debt brake. This change of course is still held against some CDU/CSU politicians in their constituencies to this day. Changing the debt brake again would therefore be politically extremely uncomfortable for many.
Two models, but no compromise
The reform commission is apparently working on different models. The CDU/CSU side is said to favor a “breathing debt brake.” According to this, there would be more leeway only if Germany's debt level is below 60 percent.
The SPD side, by contrast, is banking on an “investment-oriented debt brake.” Under this, structural net new borrowing would rise and, in addition, more money would become available for investment.
Their views also diverge on defense spending. The CDU/CSU wants to phase out exceptions more quickly, the SPD more slowly. A finished compromise looks different. Or, as Merz puts it: “We remain stuck facing the same dilemma.”
