By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Critiques the government's economic approach, stressing that cuts and tax increases harm the economy and fail to deliver meaningful growth. Recommends pro-growth measures and alternative financing methods (such as a windfall profit tax on banks and reforms aimed at reducing bureaucracy). Seeks solutions that would balance state revenues and expenditures without adversely affecting vulnerable populations, and underscores the necessity of preparing a budget with a strategic, long-term perspective.

At the heart of the economic discussion are scale taxes and costs, where the central point of criticism is the government’s unreasonably escalating taxes and fines, which undermine people’s ability to cope financially and exacerbate social inequality. It argues that hiking fines and state fees is an economic policy that amounts to a "tax on government incompetence," and stresses the necessity of not increasing the burden on the poor and the middle class. It calls for transparency and fair compensation (for example, increasing damages awarded for non-pecuniary harm).

Economically, the emphasis is placed on freezing the funding and channeling the released resources to support Georgian civil society; precise figures or a detailed macroeconomic analysis are lacking.

Economically, the stance is critical of the proposed cuts: it is stressed that these reductions could result in a revenue loss of 20–30 million euros, and a transparent and responsible fiscal policy is preferred. He/She emphasizes long-term economic sustainability and accountability over short-term savings, viewing short-term cuts critically as potentially detrimental. The demand is for accurate forecasts and an economic debate that properly accounts for the balance between revenues and expenditures.

A key criticism in economic policy targets all increases to the car tax, state fees, and fines, as well as taxation implemented purely for the sake of meeting budget targets. It is argued that state fees and fines are increasing oppressively and could actually reduce overall revenue if people are unable to pay them. Critics stress that the state should ensure services remain affordable and avoid disproportionate measures that would damage the economy. The primary objective should be protecting economic growth and living standards, and fostering entrepreneurship, rather than penalizing it.

Critical of the government's economic policy: notes the recession, rising prices, and declining exports; calls for impact assessments regarding the austerity policy and tax burdens; at the same time, emphasizes the need for feasibility and transparency in economic growth plans; condemns the uncontrolled growth of expenditures and the costs associated with digital solutions.