Agenda Profile: Lauri Laats

The opposition's stance on the draft bill emphasizes the absence of a long-term vision and criticizes the budget structure. They point out that the combination of billion-euro tax increases, nationwide borrowing, and the utilization of European funds is viewed as having a negative impact on the way of life, and consequently, they do not support the current form of the bill. The need for clear priorities, transparent resource allocation, and visionary development has been highlighted.

It involves precise figures and financial logic: a comparison of state budget components (1.7 billion euros from European funds, 0.7 billion in loans, totaling 1.9 billion from the previous year), alongside criticism of the overall tax burden and the proportion of consumption taxes. It references investments in Rail Baltic and discussions related to energy prices and networks, utilizing the presentation of factual points concerning the economy and the budget. The text acknowledges European funds and state own resources as crucial sources of investment and highlights the necessity of reviewing a better planned and more transparent budget framework.

The speaker adopts a critical and serious tone, blending emotional intensity with factual data; they employ questions and stress the impact on people's lives. The texts utilize a style that is both explanatory and expressive of contentment and worry, frequently urging listeners to reflect and take action, and, if needed, to discuss proposals during the intermission.

He/She participated in the discussions during the three hearings held on both dates (November 13 and 14, 2024), referencing the intensive discussion of official duties and the necessity of negotiations. It was repeatedly emphasized that breaks (e.g., ten minutes) would be permitted for discussing negotiations and proposed amendments, demonstrating consistent stakeholder engagement and adherence to procedural steps.

The primary target of the critique is the overall structure of the budget and the transparency of the budgeting process, symbolized by criticism of 'Excel-based thinking' and a heavy emphasis on fiscal impacts. There is a call to shift the focus by incorporating social safeguards and long-term development, and direct opposition to the current draft bill is expressed. The document critically defends the well-being of the populace and the sustainability of business entities.

Shows readiness for cooperation: praises the contribution of colleagues (e.g., Annely Akkermann), mentions negotiations with the social democrats, and seeks to foster better solutions through compromise and proposed amendments. At the same time, it strongly maintains its platform and emphasizes the need to involve other parties and revisit priorities affecting the country through budget cuts and the adjustment of views.

The address focuses on the broader national context, but emphasizes the regional and local levels: Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, Rohuküla, the maintenance of local roads, free public transport, the specific needs of island residents, and the potential of the Tallinn hospital project. It highlights the necessity of ensuring a fair distribution of resources and the sustainability of regional investments.

In economic policy, the focus centers on criticizing tax changes and questioning the role of consumption taxes; the aim is to avoid implementing larger consumption taxes and prevent the tax burden on individuals from rising. It prioritizes investments utilizing state resources and European funds that would help stimulate the economy, emphasizing that the approved budget must focus on public welfare and long-term growth, rather than short-term gambles. It expresses skepticism toward the adopted budget and advocates for greater investment that is financially, socially, and regionally balanced.

It supports a wide range of social priorities, including measures aimed at improving the well-being of children and families (such as benefits and the quality of school lunches), increasing subsistence allowances for elderly pensioners, support for people with disabilities, child benefits, salaries for police and rescue workers, and concessions for island residents. It stresses the importance of funding the accessibility of schools and healthcare, including dental care, and reducing treatment waiting times. Furthermore, it considers it right to integrate measures that enhance social welfare and reduce regional inequality.

The focus is on reviewing budget-related amendments and preparing them for subsequent votes: increases in school and subsistence funds, funding for local roads, the continuation of the Rohuküla railway, the Hiiumaa War of Independence memorial, the budgeting for the Tallinn hospital project, and various social support figures. This demonstrates a readiness to propose and test amendments and avoid automatically accepting the budget, emphasizing the need to discuss and evaluate different solutions, including taking breaks for negotiations.