It is correct that the government is doing something about the high gas and electricity prices. But you don't have to be happy about the law. It is neither efficient nor purposeful. The money would be needed elsewhere.
"Giesskanne" could be the next German word to make a name for itself in other languages. Like "Kindergarten", "Zeitgeist" or most recently "Ghost Games". Whenever governments want to quench flaring dissatisfaction, "the" or "la watering can" would be used. Just like in Germany: The Bundestag has just passed the gas and electricity price brake, on Friday the Bundesrat will follow.
Of course it is right to cushion now. Gas and electricity prices overwhelm many in the country. Food and fuel are also getting more and more expensive. But the new law is not targeted. On the contrary, here a problem is buried with money. Instead of helping everyone, it is better to help where it is really needed.
200 billion euros are available for the coming years to subsidize energy prices. The fact that people pocket the money who don't need it is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders. The fact that gas prices will rise again for many in the coming year despite the brakes because the suppliers have just quickly increased the prices (which are then braked down again) is the way it is. It should just be quick and easy.
But it could be a little more targeted and efficient. 13 million people in Germany are at risk of poverty - they have less than 15,009 euros at their disposal. At the same time, the top 10 percent of the population owns 60 percent of the wealth. The lower fifth has nothing on the high edge. You could add more numbers, but the message is always the same: few have a lot, many have little.
It is well known that single mothers and fathers are particularly at risk of poverty. Likewise families, especially those with three or more children. Many pensioners and especially female pensioners often just barely make ends meet. Why not distribute the money to them in a targeted manner? Social policy and solidarity are all about helping the weak.
We know that this is basically possible. Families with children have already received payments of several hundred euros this year. It could have been done this way again. Single parents and families could have been better equipped the more children they have. A solution could also be found for everyone of retirement age. In this way, those who need it most urgently would receive the money. Maybe a billion or two could be saved that way. That would have been fairer and also more financially responsible.
The watering can, on the other hand, threatens to become a matter of course in Germany. But it is still important to take a close look. Because the high energy prices are by no means the only construction site we have in Germany. The healthcare system is groaning. But that only affects the people who work there and the poor devils who have to go to the hospital right now.
Of course, the lack of skilled workers cannot simply be wiped away with more money. But there are a few adjustment screws to improve the framework conditions. The fact that children's hospitals are overloaded, that the Berlin Charité is now postponing planned operations again, is unacceptable. The list could go on: daycare, school, training. Digitalization. Promote renewable energies. Now, on the other hand, part of the money is simply wasted because the government did not want to weight the aid.
Why? Perhaps because there was this outcry with the last relief package that pensioners and students had been forgotten. Because you always create a bit of injustice when you favor individual groups: there will then be cases in which some end up having more money than those who didn't get anything. Millions went away empty-handed - and many would probably be angry. But does everything always have to be done by consensus? Do you think that the masses will run after the AfD without cushioning? Olaf Scholz attaches great importance not to be driven by public opinion.
The government saves something. Namely the criticism of those who would be helped less or not at all. Now everyone gets something and not everyone is happy, but there is no outcry either. Will the "watering can" still make a career abroad? Maybe yes, as a swear word.
