Dhe extension of the partial lockdown beyond the New Year (if the Chancellery has its way, until March) has an obvious response: All of this may be appropriate, but actually it cannot go on like this. Just imagine if there wasn’t a vaccine. The Chancellor’s word about the “Ultimo” takes on a whole new meaning.
What was meant was the federal load limit. But the funds are also not infinitely available to the federal states. Armin Laschet was the first Prime Minister to break the taboo. The state, he said, would break under this burden. The federal and state governments are meant equally.
Laschet’s strong words can also be understood as a reaction to Ralph Brinkhaus. He had opened a barrel in the Bundestag: In order to help the federal government out of its embarrassment, the federal states would finally have to take action. The resistance of the countries was not long in coming. Not by chance the East German Prime Minister immediately frowned. But the anger grabbed the Prime Minister of one of the most taxable countries, Volker Bouffier from Hesse, which, however, is no longer quite as taxable.
Bouffier listed what the federal states are already financing, even if not as effective as the lord of the cornucopia in Berlin. Its control by the CDU / CSU parliamentary group has not been so strict lately – an additional reason why the countries are not too enthusiastic about the group chairman’s move. Since the states inevitably also mean the municipalities, Brinkhaus will also face headwinds from this direction.
If Bouffier is not one of the enthusiasts, Laschet will certainly not be. Its advance is clearly aimed at the effectiveness of the corona federal policy.
The FDP, with which Laschet governs, pointed out in the Bundestag that a particularly high number of fatalities were to be lamented in old people’s and nursing homes. This suggests that the Corona policy lacks a sense of proportion, concentration and imagination. The hammer, however “light” it may be, is the wrong tool for this in the long run.