As yesterday the Senate established a national child allowance of CFR 250, - agreed, I understand this is no longer a bulwark of federalism established Council. Are we citizens of this advice even as those of our items? Was he not much more national for years just our little chamber?
Many people ask me, why me since my youth on the subsidiarity principle herumreite. Es wurde für mein politisches Denken wichtig, weil eine Demokratie ohne dessen strenge Beachtung früher oder später in eine Herrschaft von Eingeweihten oder Institutionen übergeht und sich dem Volk entfremdet . Es allein verhindert, dass die Menschen sich entpolitisieren, oder positiv formuliert: Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip hält die Menschen politisch wach und engagiert, weil es dafür sorgt, dass Politik dort stattfindet, wo sie in einer Demokratie hingehört: Am und beim Volk.
Nehmen wir das Kindergeld als Beispiel: Der einzelne Mensch, das Individuum, ist das „unterste“ Glied (eigentlich das „oberste“) in der Hierarchie der Subsidiarität. He is for himself, for his decisions (his plan of life) and acts responsibly and with it - as far as it goes - including his pension for accident, sickness, unemployment and old age care. Closes it together into a community with children, this community the next level in the hierarchy of subsidiarity, because the two individuals are now responsible not only for themselves but also for the children, their welfare and education. The next stage is the community. About the demands on both individuals and communities with children about their options, the next successive stage in the hierarchy is responsible and which is the church. The family policy is therefore primarily a municipal policy. Here, the families and the parties involved (they do it, too, but enough?), For day-care centers, nurseries, kindergartens, lunch clubs, primary schools and secondary schools are the responsibility of the municipalities. Because these stakeholders are close, their needs can be best fulfilled. In my opinion, would be the stuff of local children's allowances, which will be recognized in them the best of who has what and how much is necessary. As for the taxes I could imagine a competition for families in the communities: one decides to do nothing and certainly not in a conservative sense dual-income households to assist with children. It would also deal with stingy kids' money, and would be decried as soon as hostile to families, would be perhaps of children's noise and reduces additional costs, but within a short time without life, aging, and thus doomed to extinction. Other communities were found to be very child-and family-friendly. They would stay to live and grow, and so benefit the years, certainly for tax purposes. ... And communities, who bear a disproportionately large immigrant families? Apart from that I think the immigrants should be integrated quickly as possible in the policy community in order to be politicized, first and second, the large Problems, to learn the migration of kindergartens, schools and so on is to identify better and help with ideas and imagination, they can address problems with and solve, I think that now the next level of subsidiarity applies: The Canton or very large, as Bern, the districts.
Always, when I read of good ideas being exploited in relation to the integration of immigrants, this is happening in communities or neighborhoods of cities, for trouble gives birth to ideas, not the delegate of the problems to higher-level institutions, be they political, as the District or even the federal government, or association and not strictly locally active NGOs.
child benefit is now, unfortunately, already been organized at cantonal level. Of course, this created differences. Apart from the purchasing power of the currency that is not the same in all cantons, caused more family-friendly and less family friendly. If the unions are fighting with children in the latter for more bodies, which would make their lives easier, or more child benefit, would find the fight take place where he belongs.
I agree with an editorial writer for the NZZ (I do not now remember who it was) who said that cantons with the family policy can be just reap any major laurels, because through television and The media is our strong view is directed to Berne. The policy needs to accept that show character, stars and champions, and national leaders to give her more than cantonal. I mean, we could also change, in which we create a competition on family-friendliness of the cantons, so as we do with taxes. Each year we can see how far up in about a list of our District is the taxes. What if we could read each year, about how far up in a list of our District would be family friendly? Especially family-friendly communities, I would with a price - Awards - similar to the Wacker Prize. How hard it is Centralized once again get away from something, we are currently experiencing with the federalism debate in Germany.
Social Democratic and Green politicians are attacking me now because they feel these differences in children's allowances to be unfair. Also, I am fighting, when it is unjust. The big difference of how to eliminate injustice, lies in thinking. In my view, is rooted thought, injustices from the nation state - from top to bottom - will eliminate, in the succession of absolutism: the sovereign is responsible. If we replace the prince as the sovereign of the nation state, that this nation-state. But if we as the people of sovereign begin to resolve - look, we must start with each of these people and the problems from it - ie from bottom to top. subsidiarity principle and real national sovereignty are inseparable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment