What really lies behind Linnemann's tough announcements about citizen's income

A reform of the citizen's income, including tougher sanctions for those unwilling to work, was a central campaign demand of the CDU/CSU. The SPD agreed in principle.

However, it remains entirely unclear to what extent the CDU/CSU and SPD can agree on the details. Labor Minister Bärbel Bas (SPD) has already indicated that she doesn't expect much from tougher sanctions.

At times, one even gets the impression that the SPD co-chair isn't necessarily committed to fundamentally changing the SPD's once prestige project, the Citizens' Income. Rather, she seems to want to save as much of it as possible.

The CDU General Secretary, who as Minister of Economic Affairs and Labor would have preferred to implement the reform himself, is pushing ahead with tough demands and urging speed. Linnemann wants to see action by the fall.

No one knows exactly how many of these so-called total refusers are among the 5.5 million benefit recipients. The Federal Employment Agency does not keep specific statistics on this.

However, every year there are around 15,000 cases of benefit cuts that are justified by the refusal to work or undertake training.

Linnemann operates with different numbers: "Statistics suggest that a six-figure number of people are unwilling to accept a job," he said in July 2024. Basic social security must be "completely abolished."

Whether it's 15,000 or 150,000, every unwilling taxpayer is one too many. At the same time, they represent a provocation for all those who work full-time for low wages and who have little more to live on than if they were only receiving the citizen's allowance.

Eliminating all benefits for those who refuse to work would certainly have a deterrent effect on others who would like to settle into a life without work. But benefits cannot be eliminated entirely.

The SPD's inclination to participate in this is unlikely, especially considering the Left Party and the Greens. But even more importantly, a 2019 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court does not permit a blanket deletion with reference to the Basic Law – at most, for a limited period.

Now, theoretically, the Basic Law could be amended. CDU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn already considered this last year. He is convinced that the complete deletion "could also be incorporated into the constitution."

However, the SPD parliamentary group is unlikely to be willing to do so. Furthermore, the coalition would need votes from the Greens and the Left Party if it doesn't want to rely on the support of the AfD.

However, it can be ruled out that the Left and the Greens would help the Merz/Klingbeil government to cut off all support for total objectors. Any consideration of a corresponding amendment to the Basic Law would therefore be a waste of time.

Of course, Linnemann knows that his demand has no prospect of being realized. There are several reasons why he keeps repeating it.

On the one hand, Linnemann wants to remind the SPD that the conversion of the citizen's income into a basic social security benefit was firmly agreed upon in the coalition agreement. On the other hand, he is sending a message to his own party: We in the coalition will not give up our own goals without a fight.

Coalitions are based on compromises. For this reason alone, coalition partners—regardless of their party political composition—must strive to maintain their own profile.

The coalition agreement between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) doesn't stop the SPD's left wing from constantly calling for higher (or new) taxes on income, inheritances, and assets. The CDU and CSU's prompt rejection is a foregone conclusion.

The situation is no different with Linnemann's constant push for citizen's income. He demands more than he can get. But that's precisely the job of a Secretary General.