Three economists, four opinions. This saying comes to mind in the debate about the debt limit and its supposed need for reform since the budget ruling of Germanys Federal Constitutional Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") on November 15. The range of opinions is reflected in the recently published economist panel by the Ifo Institute, in which nearly 200 German scholars participated. Some argue for maintaining the debt brake unchanged, while others propose reforms to enable more debt for increased investments. Additionally, there are those who advocate allowing debt for greater consumption for social reasons, and a minority supports the complete abolition of the debt brake. The discussion among economists mirrors that among politicians and thus provides a hint at the right path: Hands off the basic law, in which the debt brake is rightly anchored! Although a constitution is not set in stone, changes should not be made out of the exigencies of day-to-day politics. The attempt by the "reformers" to save their thwarted transformation and subsidy agenda, which was disrupted by the court ruling, and to burden the next generation with the financial consequences is too transparent.

While it is generally true that investments financed with additional debt will also benefit the next generation, it does not exempt each generation from the obligation to tackle its tasks with self-earned means. The "Buy now, pay later" mentality has no place in a serious and generationally fair fiscal policy. The transformation of the economy with the aim of at least limiting the already incurred climate damage must be paid for by the generation that has enjoyed the resulting prosperity. The transformation must not be at the expense of our children and grandchildren. This means that the current generation must tighten its belt and, above all, disproportionately tax those who disproportionately benefit from prosperity.

Trying to differentiate between "good" debt for additional state investments and "bad" debt for consumption expenditures is neither logically justified nor practical. The notion of a "Golden Rule" transferred from corporate balance sheets to the state budget failed to prevent the mounting national debt in the past. It would remain ineffective even in its new iteration as the "Golden Rule plus." Politicians will always find good reasons for their planned "future investments." The boundaries between state investment and consumption expenditures are fluid, as can be seen in the example of education investments.

Politicians of all stripes prefer consumption expenditures, including social spending, because they favor their re-election. While "government consumption" in the form of the social benefits ratio has now risen to 30% of gross domestic product, state investment spending has halved to only 2.5% of GDP over the years. The deteriorating infrastructure bears witness to this.

The debt limit forces politicians to think about the targeted, most efficient, and socially beneficial use of tax revenues. Especially since many consumption expenditures are at least temporarily legally prescribed, prioritization is essential. This may be annoying, particularly in a coalition government where partners like to fulfill each other's wish lists. However, a reform or relaxation of the debt brake would only encourage imaginative reshuffling for new consumption expenditures.