It was a very productive working visit that sent a clear message: Jana Schmöller, Head of Social Affairs for the state capital of Mainz, and David Guthier, Head of Social Affairs for the city of Ludwigshafen am Rhein, met this week in Mainz for a strategic exchange. As the largest and second-largest cities in Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz and Ludwigshafen face very similar social and financial challenges. The meeting not only served as a collegial exchange of experiences but also resulted in a clear joint stance on the federal government’s current social policy.

The discussions focused on the federal government’s announced and already implemented budget cuts. Schmöller and Guthier are united in their opposition to this course of social cuts, which they believe ignores the realities on the ground in local communities.

“When the federal government makes cuts, we feel the consequences in the cities with a time lag, but with full force,” Schmöller and Guthier explained following their meeting. Both department heads expect the federal government to offer significantly more than mere proposals for cuts that lack a well-thought-out impact assessment. Comparisons based on the practical experiences of both cities clearly show that when the federal government cuts central social benefits, it does not solve the problems but merely shifts the financial and social burdens to the local level.

This undesirable trend is particularly evident in housing assistance. Both department heads strongly warn against cuts or a failure to adjust benefits to reflect actual rent and energy costs. Housing assistance is the most effective tool for preventing low-income households from slipping into the basic income support system. If assistance in this area were reduced, many families would face immediate existential hardship and ultimately end up relying on municipal assistance systems.

They are equally opposed to the federal government’s funding cuts for integration courses. Especially in light of successful local social and professional integration, these cuts send entirely the wrong signal. Language and orientation courses are the basic prerequisite for leading an independent life and gaining access to the labor market. Cutting funding here jeopardizes hard-won integration successes, makes it more difficult for newcomers to settle into local communities, and will ultimately result in significantly higher follow-up costs for cities.

Schmöller and Guthier also view developments in the healthcare system and the reform debates surrounding statutory health insurance (GKV) financing with great concern. Rising supplementary premiums and inadequate funding for health care not only place a direct financial burden on citizens, but the expected reduction in psychotherapy slots for those with statutory health insurance also poses a significant risk to people’s health.

Schmöller and Guthier conclude by emphasizing: “We need reliable framework conditions from the federal government and a genuine partnership on equal footing. Cuts made without a clear plan do not solve problems; rather, they weaken social cohesion precisely where people live—in our communities.”