Cantonal government presents new package itemising CHF 13 million in cuts

The cantonal government has come up with a new package of cuts, in which it plans to save CHF13 million. According to the cantonal director of finance, Heinz Tännler, the package, known as “Savings Package 2018” (SP2018) is “one to which no-one could object”, bearing in mind the failure of the government to get its proposals passed in a referendum last November.
 
Presenting the package with 22 specific measures at the end of last week, Tännler (photograph) reminded everyone of the necessity of putting the cantonal finances in order. Failing this, deficits to the tune of two or even three-digit million figures could be expected in coming years. Hence he thought an effective package such as this should be introduced, not least with it being implementable in the short term, unlike with the previous two packages, namely the Finanzen 2019 one and the 2018 Cantonal Equalisation Fund Reform.
 
As the director of finance pointed out, great care was taken to leave out any measures which were considered controversial in previous proposals. Indeed, he said he had had positive feedback from party leaders and staff associations, this latter group particularly affected as the measures include the reduction of incremental payments to cantonal administration staff by 50% for a two-year period, bring in savings of CHF 2.6 million, the same amount able to be saved by using the Lottery Fund to pay for Inter-cantonal Cultural Equalisation Fund.
 
Other measures include the scrapping of support for local children who attend private schools, saving CHF 2.14 million, and the charging of those responsible where policing has to be provided, which is expected to bring in CHF 540,000. Furthermore, there will be a reduction in contribution from the canton in relation to payments to fruit-growers in the event of hail damage, meaning savings of CHF 100,000, and also a reduction in the funding by the canton in relation to the advisory centre for teachers and headteachers, saving CHF 84,000, to mention just six of the 22 measures.
 
As to tax, this is not specifically a part of the SP2018, but a temporary increase in the tax threshold for the 2018 and 2019 has not been excluded, with tax increases part of the proposals included in the 2019 Projekt Finanzen, something the Alternative Green Party would like to see enacted. They feel it only right that, if cutbacks are made, especially where they affect the less well off, those who can afford it should be made to pay higher taxes.
 
Following the director of finance’s release of details of this savings programme, reaction from political parties was mixed, though all objected in varying degrees to Tännler’s remarks that this package had been “generally well received”.
 
For example, the leader of the CVP cantonal parliamentary party, Andreas Hausheer of Steinhausen, said he could well imagine some of the measures, such as those relating to the afore-mentioned ones relating to police and using the Lottery Fund, being hotly disputed.
 
For his part, Philip C. Brunner, a member of the SVP parliamentary party (to which Tännler also belongs), was pleased that the government had come up with these proposals so soon after its defeat in November’s referendum, and that his party would be debating them.
 
Speaking on behalf of the FDP, parliamentarian Florian Weber of Walchwil said he welcomed “immediate savings measures” such as these, but would have liked to see other areas included, too.
 
Alois Gössi of Baar, the leader of the SP parliamentary party, said that although his party “basically agreed” with the government’s proposals, he was against the cuts in relation to administrative staff and the increased costs to shipping companies on Lake Zug as the canton reduced its level of deficit cover, bringing in an additional CHF 250,000. He was also pleased to hear of the proposed temporary increase in tax thresholds for 2018 and 2019.
 
Not happy with Tännler’s proposals was Andreas Lustenberger of Baar, a cantonal parliamentarian of the Alternative Green party, who was against the introduction of any such package without a commitment to increase taxes, too, as the two aspects were related.