Germany: Whoever Cuts Education, Healthcare, and Climate Spending Is Cutting the Future - Where the Money Is Going - A Reform in Numbers

There are reforms that reveal more about a country than any government policy speech ever could, and the federal budget is one of them. It is the answer, cast in numbers, to what a society values and what it values less. Anyone who wants to know where a government is headed does not need to listen to its speeches. They simply need to see which ministries receive more money and which receive less. The numbers do exactly that. They show the percentage change for each ministry in 2026 compared with the previous year, and anyone who reads them is reading the priorities of the coalition between the CDU/CSU and the SPD in their purest form.

At the top of the list stands the Ministry of Defense, with an increase of 32.7 percent. This is no symbolic adjustment but a massive leap. Defense spending rises from approximately €62.4 billion this year to €82.7 billion, with another €25.5 billion coming from the special fund established for the Bundeswehr. Chancellor Merz has placed this military buildup under the slogan whatever it takes, whatever the cost, and the figures show that he means exactly that. By 2029, defense spending is expected to reach 3.5 percent of economic output, in line with NATO's target. In second place, with an increase of 29.6 percent, is not a ministry at all but the federal debt, the budget item covering debt servicing costs. That, too, tells a quiet truth. Much of the money now being spent has been borrowed, and the interest payments are rising with it.

After that, the increases become modest. The newly created Ministry for Digital Affairs is listed with an increase of 6.2 percent. That comparison is of limited value, however, because the ministry was newly established and responsibilities were reorganized. The Interior Ministry increases by 6.0 percent, the Finance Ministry by 2.2 percent, the Labor Ministry by 2.1 percent, and the Research Ministry by a mere 0.7 percent. These are low single digit increases, gains that barely keep pace with inflation. Then, below the zero line, begins the other half of the story, the story of the losers. The Ministry of Justice loses 0.3 percent, as does the Ministry of Agriculture. The Foreign Office and the Environment Ministry each lose 1.1 percent, the Housing Ministry 3.1 percent, the Transport Ministry 5.3 percent, the Development Ministry 5.8 percent, the Economy Ministry 6.0 percent, and the Education Ministry 7.1 percent. Pause for a moment over that final figure. Education, the very field every Sunday speech proclaims to be the country's future, is being cut by more than seven percent.

What stands out most is not only what is growing but also what is losing political weight despite steadily rising costs. Throughout the healthcare system, health insurers, medical associations, and hospitals have been warning for months about funding gaps, rising out of pocket costs, and a growing backlog of overdue reforms. The budget of the Ministry of Health tells only part of the story. The real question is whether the resources being provided are sufficient to meet actual demand. There are serious reasons to doubt that. While defense receives tens of billions of euros in additional funding, the healthcare system continues to face substantial financial pressure in many areas.

A note of caution belongs here because numbers can be misleading when stripped of their context. Part of these changes is explained not only by political choices but also by the restructuring of the ministries themselves. The government has redrawn responsibilities, created a separate Digital Ministry, and shifted functions from one ministry to another. When, for example, the Transport Ministry becomes smaller, part of the reason is that certain responsibilities have been transferred to the new Digital Ministry. A percentage decline therefore does not always mean less money is available for the same purpose. Anyone making a fair judgment must take that into account, and it is precisely that fairness which distinguishes an article from a slogan.

Even after all those qualifications, however, one fact remains that cannot be explained away. Defense spending is increasing dramatically in real terms. This is not an accounting trick but an additional €20 billion for weapons and ammunition. At the same time, the healthcare system remains under considerable financial pressure despite rising costs, growing funding gaps, and an increasing need for reform. The overall direction is unmistakable. This government is giving priority to external defense while placing less emphasis on domestic well being.

Here the real question emerges, one that reaches far beyond any single budget line. A country strengthening its defenses in uncertain times is not acting irrationally. On the contrary, given a war in Europe and an increasingly unstable world order, it is entirely understandable. The real question is not whether to spend money on security but what must be sacrificed in return. A nation does not protect itself with tanks and missiles alone. It also protects itself with healthy citizens, educated children, a resilient economy, and infrastructure that continues to function. Anyone who purchases external security at the expense of internal stability merely shifts the danger rather than eliminating it. They defend the walls of a house while simultaneously dismantling its foundation.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment argued over the true purpose of the state, and many concluded that its responsibility lies both in protecting its citizens and promoting their well being. Both, not one alone. A state that protects but does not care becomes a fortress no longer worth living in. A state that cares but cannot protect itself becomes prey. The art of governing lies in maintaining the balance between the two, and that is precisely the balance a reform like this places under debate. When defense spending grows by one third while the healthcare system remains under severe financial pressure despite rising costs, the scales have tipped out of balance, and it is worth asking whether that was intentional or simply allowed to happen.

While the headlines dominated public debate for days, the real story went almost unnoticed. The priorities of this budget have been visible in the numbers all along. You simply have to place them side by side.

In the end, one simple conclusion remains. A budget is not a neutral accounting document. It is a moral document. Every number represents a decision, and every decision represents a hierarchy of priorities. This reform has laid out that hierarchy in plain view, with defense at the top while other essential areas of the future, such as education, climate, and healthcare, receive far less emphasis. Whether that is the right order will remain a matter of debate. That it is an order with consequences is beyond dispute. What is decided in today's budget determines the kind of country we will live in tomorrow. And there is one more question that matters in any nation - how long the public is willing to accept it before the streets no longer remain empty.