Slowly but steadily it goes down. Anyone who was not born with a golden spoon in his mouth (or belongs to the millionaire caste for less innocuous reasons) already feels it: inflationary price trends for goods and services of everyday needs are eroding our material livelihoods. The trend towards old-age poverty is increasing, the gap between rich and poor is becoming ever more stark. Our community thus fits perfectly into the "Western Community of Values". It goes without saying that their "values" are listed on the stock exchange.
The problem area of "social affairs" is at the top of the 3rd place in the catalogue of the most important information needs of the German citizen. The Tagesschau nevertheless deals only luschig with his worries, without any commitment. This can be seen on your website by using the search function with the keyword "cost of living" as an example. Even moderately demanding cabaret shows are more informative in this regard than the [offers] of ARD-aktuell:
"Fruit has become 15.1% more expensive. The daily rate for Hartz IV recipients is 5.07 euros. From 2022, there will be 0.76% more Hartz – with an inflation rate of almost 5%. Find the bug!"
[Decided] from January 2022, 3 euros more per month for the poorest among us. The next increase should come two years later. However, the Hartz IV money may already be converted into a "citizen's money" by the coming government majority. In the end, fat eyes will no longer swim on this water soup. However, it can be better spent under the new name as a social benefit. It sounds almost as beautiful as the claim that Chancellor candidate Scholz has a snow-white vest, Lindner is socially minded and Annalena has more intellectual aspirations than shooting the Baerbock of the week.
"Inflation rate 5%" is not a satirical exaggeration. The resignation of Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann is seen as a bad omen of a significantly greater [devaluation] of money. Only the Tagesschau has not taken up this so far.
True, the topic of "Corona" still ranks higher than social data in the information needs of citizens. However, it is currently only dealt with by ARD with a heavy impact. The anti-vaccination campaign is being waged as if they are a serious social danger. The government's choice of words against criticism of the vaccination program is correspondingly strong: "fake news", "conspiracy theorists", "fear-mongers", "right-wing extremists", etc. The lousy form of opinion-making also comes in the guise of serious search for knowledge, as Tagesschau "fact-finders".
Other issues concerning the real interest of the majority of the population and their situation are neglected or only briefly dealt with. Thus systematically deprived of public attention and the necessary social debate - as graphics about lazy Covid-19 incidence statistics offer a suitable substitute for comprehensive information about the challenged norms of our welfare state. The imbalance of the discourse is downright absurd.
The Tagesschau stock market reports claim that the current inflation is probably only temporary, and that everything will return to its usual low level in the coming year. Who believes it... [In combination] with progressive poverty, mini-pensions, housing shortage, rent explosion, statistically deliberately ignored unemployment and serious structural changes in the "labor market" [creates] the price increase uncertainty and fears for the future. For the Tagesschau, however, to finally put this problem at the center of informative reporting and in accordance with the majority of viewers' needs would mean dealing with political and economic decision-makers. With the "elites" of politics and the monetary powers of our "free market economy".
Dying do not want to shine a spotlight on the rubble of the former welfare state. It applies the image of the blooming landscapes, basta.
Socio-critical, enlightening information work will and does die ARD-currently not. The still most important German newsroom is miles away from seeing itself as a public advocate for politics and business. Three-quarters of a century ago, [BBC] journalist Hugh Carleton Greene demanded that post-war German journalists continue to raise awareness, show civil courage and disrespect for those in power:
"Never believe what they say!"
However, this basic journalistic concept has long since disappeared from the collective memory. Greene, the first director-General of Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk (NWDR) appointed by the British military government, is remembered today only by the street name at the entrance to the NDR television site in Hamburg-Lokstedt. The offices and studios of the Tagesschau are also located there.
Post hunters instead of guardians
The fact that ARD-aktuell does not follow anything, but nothing at all, of Greene's recommendations, was recently again in the news about the exploratory talks of the "traffic light" lights, obscenely undisguised: The would-be coalitionists had also exchanged views on pension security during their post stalking. At its anti-social propaganda level [reported the ARD-aktuell]:
"As it is, it can not stay – based on an election campaign slogan of the FDP, one could say that about the pension ... Because the population development is clear: Because of the increasing life expectancy, the financing of the statutory pension insurance is becoming increasingly difficult ..."
The fact that other contribution models for financing the statutory pension (for example without contribution limits and taking into account all income, not just employment income) had obviously not been discussed at all was concealed. The ARD-aktuell journalists rather blew the horn of those who are indifferent that millions of fellow human beings can not lead a socially secure life in old age.
Our top journalists do not confront the political Rosstäuscher and tricksters with opposing pension concepts, not even with those that have proven successful in other European countries. They only babble the unimaginative saying that in the future fewer and fewer young workers will have to finance more and older pensioners and that the public coffers will soon be overwhelmed with social compensation. In doing so, they indirectly justify the looting on which the pension privatisers are currently back.
The publicist Albrecht Müller, head of the Planning Staff in the Federal Chancellery during the reigns of Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt and today editor of the Nachdenkseiten, recently commented on the false and disinformative statements:
"None of the claims about demographics and retirement are true. They have taken root solely because they are constantly repeated, invading us from different corners. They are prime examples of the possibility of total opinion-making and of the political and financial effectiveness of such opinion-making."
ARD-aktuell, owner of the interpretive authority in the news world, ignores such findings, instead of objectively dealing with them, to compare them with the statements of the party politicians and the "experts", these experts and lobbyists closely associated with the insurance industry.
Geraffelhüscht instead of informed
There is no open discourse on ways to secure retirement provision. Rather, ARD-aktuell contributes to the fact that bogus arguments dominate the deliberately narrowed debate. She lets partisan, biased consultants like Bernd Raffelhüschen have their say. The professor liked to act as an independent expert without revealing his very monetary connection to the insurance industry. Typical is his demagogic "either-or" view, which does not allow any alternatives or compromises to be perceived: If the retirement age is not increased further, the federal government must
"either raise the contribution rates for the pension fund to almost 28 percent or increase the federal subsidy from tax funds extremely".
With all due respect: Otto normal consumer can fool himself, even without professorial guidance. The Tagesschau's commitment to "factual, complete and comprehensive reporting" according to "recognized journalistic principles" is [disregarded] with such demagogic excesses. In addition, the Tagesschau does not provide comprehensive and continuous information on the better financed and more socially structured pension systems in other countries (Switzerland, Austria). Therefore, the demolition work on our system of pay-as-you-go statutory pension can be continued largely undisturbed.
For example, despite the slightly higher pension contribution, Austrian social security contributions are lower overall than German social security contributions, due to the low health insurance costs and unnecessary long–term care insurance contributions. In the news offer of the * mdr * you can read it, from the Tagesschau you will not find out what was [created] in our southern neighboring country of the welfare state:
"The contribution rate has remained unchanged at 22.8 percent since 1988, with employers paying 12.55 percent and employees 10.25 percent. The average gross pension in Austria is 2,214.73 euros... In Germany, the standard pensioner comes after 45 years of contributions only 1,418.80 euros, about 800 euros less per month. ... The pension level (after 45 years of contributions) is in Austria at 80 Percent, in Germany at 48,2 Percent."
Remarkably, employers have to pay a 2.3 percent higher pension contribution than employees. Nevertheless, the Austrian economy did not perish. In addition, it should be noted that in our southern neighbor, the retirement age at 65 years is lower than ours. Nobody dares to talk about "pension from 70" there.
The sheer hypocrisy
The last information about the Austrian pension model that is reasonably useful for the instructive comparison [appeared] on tagesschau.de more than five years ago. Not only the experts are quite clear (Precht from Min. 44) that high-performance public pension systems are well financed, but private pension financing ultimately leads to a dead end and has always ended in disaster.
Federal politicians, despite all the hypocrisy, seem relatively indifferent to the well-being of the pensioner generation. This is particularly evident in the 30 years of discrimination against East German pensioners. The unequal pension levels in East and West have never been objectively justifiable, if one considers the GDR's billion-dollar assets, which were promised by trust expropriations. Especially [drastic] is the ongoing disadvantage of divorced women. But it is already clear that the gender Greens will not change this either.
Undaunted, the farmers' catchers of the envisaged "traffic light" coalition are hypocritical of social commitment to the pension system. The Tagesschau turns it into "news", without any reference to the consequences of the "new" [financing idea] for the statutory pension:
"We will strengthen the statutory pension and secure the minimum pension level of 48 percent. There will be no increase in the statutory retirement age. In order to secure this commitment in a generational way, we will ... enter into a partial capital cover of the statutory pension insurance. ... We will also enable German Pension Insurance to invest its reserves in a regulated manner on the capital market."
Pension reserve as a speculative asset
In other words, the pension insurance should be asked to gamble with contributions from its reserve on the stock exchange. This is an ethical revelation. The idea, which had been fished out of the neoliberal cesspool, was spread by the Bochum sociologist Martin Werding on behalf of the FDP in an opinion that was pleasing to it. It is only comparable to the proposal propagated by Friedrich Merz (CDU) that citizens should regulate their own pensions according to the US model, by means of equity investments.
The fact that a pension policy Vabanquespiel is opened here [conceals the Tagesschau] is criminal. The public should not be alarmed. Politicians and their academic water carriers enjoy perpetual closed time.
Instead of an independent critical analysis of possible pension financing models and in the spirit of Merz & Co., the Tagesschau makes propaganda for the "stock pension". If employees invest two percent of their gross income in an equity fund, this could increase pensions by up to 30 percent for long-term insured average earners. The audience is given a déjà vu with Gerhard Schröder's "Agenda 2010", with Riester's pension bullshit and Rürup's "basic pension" lusting. And the Tagesschau plays the [accompanying music]:
"More than a quarter of the federal budget had to be redirected to the Pension Fund in 2019 to fill this gap",
claimed ARD-aktuell. Wrong. Two years ago, the federal government paid a subsidy of 72 billion euros into the pension fund, which was just under 21% of the [total revenue] of 343 billion euros. This proportion, only about a fifth, has remained the same since 2005, it is not a cause for excitement. The difference to "more than a quarter" does not have to bother a Tagesschau editor, the main thing is that he swims well in the neoliberal butterfly style.
The scaremongering about pensions allegedly becoming too expensive distracts from the fact that our politicians have completely failed to ensure social balance with appropriate tax and levy policies. A comparability of living conditions can be in Germany for decades [no more talk]. Our 100 multi-billionaires are sitting on a cash fortune of 1.1 trillion euros, which is three times our [state budget]. Next to the gigantic [wealth] dwells bitter [poverty].
Despite the statutory minimum wage, more than 3.1 million of our employees cannot live from their work, they are at risk of poverty and [depend] on additional social assistance. But this is only a [matter] of time. If ever addressed, one aspect is usually left out: The main benefit in this top-up system is the employers, the state pays in their place annually around [ten billion euros] as a wage subsidy. On the question of the wage expenses you save, there is at ARD -currently, however, practically nothing. It could damage the image of the entrepreneur as a "top performer". That's what the ARD editorial team is risking - of course not at the moment.
On the slime trail
Instead of critical distance to the state and its institutions, public service broadcasting serves as a humanitarian substitute service provider in the fulfillment of welfare state obligations. With actions like "Hand in Hand in northern Germany" he does good and oils himself at the same time. NDR Director Knuth is planning a collection campaign for poor children on this slime trail. This sheds its hypocrisy and at the same time reduces the pressure on our dear legislators, who, according to our Constitution, are [obliged] to eliminate child poverty.
Basic Law-Article 14: "Property obliges. Its use should at the same time serve the good of the general public." It "should". This GG article does not commit to anything. His non-compliance is common, even infringement remains unpunished. The Tagesschau news corresponds to this Ungeist.
The fact that the topic "Poverty in Germany" is ignored and underexposed in the ARD news coverage can be easily found on the website tagesschau.de notice. The search word "poverty" shows that this phenomenon occurs almost exclusively abroad: mainly in the People's Republic of China and in Russia, who is surprised, this is also a lie, as you can read in tens of studies. Germany has driven millions into poverty, in Russia / China it is the other way around, which is also noticeable if you visit the countries more often over a longer period of time.
In Bertolt Brecht's "Alfabet" is this beautiful [verse]:
Reicher Mann und armer Mann standen da und sah'n sich an. Und der Arme sagte bleich: Wär ich nicht arm, wärst du nicht reich."