Agenda Profile: Ester Karuse
Second reading of the draft law on the state's supplementary budget for 2025 (651 SE)
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position involves strong opposition to the supplementary budget (651 SE), arguing that it exacerbates inequality and lacks targeted social support for vulnerable groups. Although the speaker supports a robust security policy and raising defense expenditure to 5%, they emphasize that this must be achieved through fair and sustainable funding mechanisms. The speaker frames their viewpoints based on core values, focusing on social justice and responsible fiscal management.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates strong expertise in public finance, tax policy, and social welfare issues. Specific figures and forecasts are used, such as the interest cost of the debt burden (320 million euros by 2027), bank profits (one billion euros), and the impact of abolishing the tax hump (500 million euros). Reference is made to the Bank of Estonia’s forecasts to support arguments concerning the necessity of permanent revenue sources.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and forceful, accusing the government of ideological bias and injustice. Both emotional terms ("more cynical," "coddling") and logical arguments are employed, highlighting the stagnation of economic growth and the effect of inflation on purchasing power. The overall tone is formal and focuses on the consequences of the policy, repeatedly questioning who the budget actually benefits or burdens.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
According to the data, the speaker made three appearances on one day, focusing on the second reading of the State's 2025 Supplementary Budget Bill. Two of the appearances were in a question-and-answer format, and one was a longer speech.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is with the government coalition, which is sharply criticized for its unfair fiscal policy and coddling of the rich. The criticism is political and ideological, accusing the government of deliberately increasing the deficit, granting tax breaks to the wealthier class, and cutting back on solidarity. There is no readiness for compromise, as the speaker does not support the supplementary budget.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker points to the Social Democrats' previous support for increasing defense spending to 5%, which demonstrates a fundamental willingness to cooperate on security policy. However, their stance on the current supplementary budget is rigid and oppositional, stressing that defense capabilities cannot be funded at the expense of teachers and doctors.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A strong regional focus is directed at Southeast Estonia and Valga, which are cited as areas with the lowest wages and limited access to services. Valga is also highlighted as an example where bank branches are being closed down consecutively, underscoring the loss of services in smaller communities.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Advocates for a fair and progressive tax policy, demanding the taxation of large corporations (Google, Facebook) and banks to ensure the permanent financing of national defense. They oppose raising the tax burden on working people (via VAT or income tax) and criticize the abolition of the income tax kink, which primarily favors higher-income individuals. They consider the government's policy irresponsible, as it increases both debt and the deficit.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The social sector focuses on supporting vulnerable groups and preserving solidarity. There is a demand to raise the subsistence minimum to ease the financial hardship faced by pensioners, elderly people living alone, and families with children due to inflation. The budget is being criticized for failing to provide targeted relief measures within the social sphere.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is opposing the State's 2025 Supplementary Budget Bill (651 SE). The speaker is acting as a strong opponent of the bill, criticizing its technical provisions and the unfair selection of funding sources, which effectively postpones the real decisions until the future.
3 Speeches Analyzed