German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Franz Müntefering surprised a lot of people in Berlin earlier this week by threatening to carve up Germany's sacred cow: its pension fund. He suggested a few days ago that the German retirement age should rise to 67 by the year 2029 -- a full six years earlier than the goal set by Angela Merkel's new governing coalition, in negotiations with Müntefering's Social Democrats. Müntefering then ridiculed criticism of his new idea, from both the left and right, as "populism."

Chancellor Merkel, though, chose to back up Müntefering's accelerated introduction of the higher retirement age, criticism died down, and by Wednesday the idea was settled policy in her cabinet. Critics of Müntefering, as well as German newspapers on Thursday, smelled a rat. "What's going on," said Ursula Engelen-Kefer, representing the Federation of German Trade Unions, "is nothing but a disguised pension cut."

The irony is that Müntefering is a leading light in the Social Democratic party (SPD), which traditionally defends the German welfare state. Criticism came from within his own party and from the trade unions. Harsh words were also to be heard from a handful of conservative Christian Democrats and their sister party the Christian Social Union. Müntefering's response? "There are a few people in the CDU/CSU who haven't realized yet that they work in government," he said. "They're engaging in opposition politics and populism. We can't tolerate this for very long."

A "populism" label from the very man who less than a year ago earned the love of under-employed Germans everywhere -- and the bile of big business -- when he famously referred to certain venture capitalists from outside Germany as "locusts," has a certain piquancy. German papers went on the attack -- but not without admitting that Müntefering knows his stuff.

"Müntefering's shown everyone how it's done," writes the Financial Times Deutschland. "Throw an idea out there, and a few days later -- after a minor flurry of criticism -- convert it to government policy. Merkel's cabinet has now decided to introduce the retirement age of 67 a few years early -- without anyone saying, 'Wait.'" If the measure really does save Germany's entire pension scheme, which is increasingly burdened by an aging population, then it's a good decision, writes the paper. But such sudden policy-making can't become the governing style in a precarious grand coalition between the SPD and CDU. "In the long run the SPD can function only by persuasion, not force," the editors argue. "(Former SPD Chancellor) Gerhard Schröder could sing Mr. Müntefering a song about that."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung agreed the fix was in, but found it a good decision. "Chancellor Merkel and Müntefering have demonstrated a taste for both leadership and power," write the editors. "With this cabinet decision, they've struck a blow for clarity and ended the period of groundless contentment in Berlin." Criticism from the trade unions and conservative politicians -- to the effect that people need to have jobs if they want to work until they're 67 -- strikes the editors as backwards. "The government had to reform the labor market in order to improve employment opportunities," writes the paper, "and thereby make sure that the social state can be paid for."

The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung was less sanguine. Working until age 67 is fine for well-off people with jobs, writes the commentator, but a burden for the less-qualified poor, who "even in 2029 will find themselves unemployed." Even more perfidious, according to the paper, is that a later retirement age lets the state save money on pensioners who simply won't live long enough to pull so many benefits from the system. "Pension schemes overall are a way to plunder the lower classes," writes the commentator. "Poor people are wanted only for paying into the system; politicians coldly count on their early demise. This trend will grow according to the plan of the SPD's new labor minister, Franz Müntefering, who likes to pose as a champion of the little man."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung, in a front-page editorial entitled "Blitz Debate," writes that a debate over German pensions "has never been over so quickly. In fact it hadn't even started" when the Merkel government reached a decision on the new proposal. Yes, Müntefering used to be a champion of the German social state, but in those days he was "still just the chairman of the SPD. Now he's the Minister for Labor and Social Affairs. As such he can't let anyone say he's shirked his responsibilities." The German welfare system needs reform, argues the paper: "The facts of German population growth leave no more doubt as to the urgency of this new measure." The same demographic statistics suggest that job prospects will improve enough by 2029 to make the policy work, the paper adds; in fact the whole system will depend on it. "But if these employment forecasts fail to hold up," the paper concludes, darkly, "then the pension debate really will be over."

Michael Scott Moore
12:30pm CET

President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address on Tuesday night had most German newspapers on Thursday yawning with boredom. (The speech came too late for Wednesday-morning editions.) They said, almost in unison, we've heard all this before -- except Bush's call for American independence from Middle Eastern oil. That proposal, at least from Bush's mouth, met with heavy German skepticism.

"George W. Bush is sounding like a Green," wrote the Financial Times Deutschland, which concentrated on this proposal and nothing else in the speech. "By 2025 he wants to replace 75 percent of America's oil imports from the Middle East with new energy sources. If Bush seriously pursues this goal, he'll start a revolution."

But is he serious? The editors remember Bush's cheerleading for hydrogen-powered cars a few years ago -- "apparently not much has happened" -- and doubts the president's willingness to raise taxes on fossil fuels. In its business section, though, the FT reports that German solar-energy stocks rallied to record highs on Wednesday, after Bush's speech.

The Berliner Zeitung is more skeptical. "The promise to make America less dependent on foreign oil and to support alternative energies is feasible only in a narrow context," given the towering US deficit, its commentator argues. "When Bush's budget is presented to Congress in the next few weeks, we'll see a slimmed-down version of the same promises."

The paper also wrote that Bush's speech only shows his waning power. "With mounting deficits and shrinking credibility, he's lowered his ambitions and demonstrated that the final years of his presidency will be determined by security and foreign policy … That the Republicans in 2006 still seem to think fear of terrorism will win them elections only goes to prove how little maneuvering room the Iraq war has left Bush."

The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung ran the most thorough and critical take on the speech, by Norman Birnbaum, an American professor emeritus in law from Georgetown University. "Bush's competence may be limited," wrote Birnbaum, "but his arrogance isn't." The project to democratize the Middle East has managed to dismantle democracy in the US itself -- in the shape of government spying on citizens and a pair of new Supreme Court justices who might uphold such practices. Furthermore, wrote Birnbaum, "Two authoritarian and corrupt regimes, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were invited to stay the course toward democracy -- though only the propagandists of American imperialism believe that either regime is moving in that direction."

Birnbaum argued that the reaction to Bush's speech by opposition Democrats was "as un-noteworthy as the speech itself," and ended with a hope that "Europeans understand how paradoxical the American nation still is."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung discovered its own paradox. In a piece titled "Bush the Turtle," its editors pointed out the lack of new ideas in the latest speech (except for the lines about foreign oil), and wondered if the President's softening stance on certain domestic issues -- including renewable energies -- wasn't a sign of compromise with Democrats. Bush needs to think about helping his party win congressional elections this year, the paper argued, so he's beginning to sound as squishy on domestic issues as he is tough on the world stage. "The late Bush is mutating into a turtle," quipped the editors. "Hard outside, soft inside."