The new family resolution gives a sigh of relief.
The Federal Constitutional Court is again forcing politicians to correct the distribution of burdens in favor of parents in the social insurance system, but this only applies to the statutory long-term care insurance fund.
Only there do the judges see the "generative contribution" of some of the parents not yet being adequately appreciated, while they dismissed corresponding lawsuits against the pension and health insurance companies.
From a Karlsruhe point of view, politics has ensured a constitutional balance in retirement by recognizing parental leave, as well as in the health system through non-contributory co-insurance for family members.
The Federal Constitutional Court thus finally recognizes the very costly improvements in the two systems that are particularly important and expensive for social security.
Everything else could hardly have been imagined - even the further compensation for disadvantages through the mother's pension was a tour de force for contributors and taxpayers.
In an international comparison, however, these are already very heavily burdened, as the new data from the industrialized country organization OECD has just shown.
Any more debt would be bad
That's why the decision "only" aimed at the long-term care insurance fund does not weigh lightly.
Since the highly controversial ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court twenty years ago, childless people have had to pay a higher contribution than parents anyway.
The fact that families with large children are now to be given greater relief through staggered contributions does not automatically mean even higher surcharges for childless people.
The judges point to the possibility of higher federal grants.
To do this, however, the federal government would have to either increase taxes or debt.
In addition to childless people, the former would probably also affect families who are now looking forward to relief.
The latter should be forbidden: If the traffic light coalition makes even more debt, it will also pass on the care costs incurred today to future generations.
But the task of financing the high pension entitlements of the baby boomers is already waiting for them.
In a sensational climate decision two years ago, the judges advocated protecting the freedoms of young people through timely climate protection.
Shouldn't the judges also consider the financial deprivation of liberty that results when the welfare state makes promises of benefits that will bind younger people excessively in the future?
In any case, the new family judgment contributes less to the clarification of generative justice than one might think at first glance.
This should give the traffic light an impetus to find better answers to the unsolved demographic questions.