Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu

The political focus centers on aligning the State Budget Act with the Constitution and re-establishing parliamentary oversight of revenues and expenditures. The speaker adopts a strongly oppositional and results-oriented stance, criticizing the government's failure to curb administrative costs and manage budgetary resources efficiently. Isamaa's objective is to restore a situation where Parliament, acting as the legislature, possesses the authority to clearly define budgetary expenditure categories. This position is robustly supported by referencing the assessments provided by the Chancellor of Justice and the Auditor General.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the domain of public finance and budgetary processes, utilizing detailed figures and statistics (e.g., the over-collection of 426 million euros, 2 billion euros remaining unspent). Technical terms such as general government expenditure, expenditure categories, and consolidated external resources are highlighted. This expertise is further evident in the comparisons drawn between the 2024 and 2025 budgets and the state budget strategy, in order to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the government's assertions.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and urgent, emphasizing the gravity of the situation (e.g., "complete pandemonium," "a total lack of leadership"). The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and facts, employing figures and statistics to refute the government’s assertions ("this does not reflect reality"). Strong, evaluative phrases are also utilized, such as "rhetorical management fluff" and "shameful figures," to underscore the consequences of poor governance.

The pattern of behavior relates to the first reading of a specific draft law (Bill 525 SE) in the Riigikogu back in December. The speaker refers to last week's events (the adoption of the budget) and promises to raise the issue again at the beginning of the new year ("with renewed energy"), showing persistent commitment to the topic.

The main opposition is directed against the government and the coalition, who stand accused of adopting an unconstitutional budget and misleading the public regarding cuts to administrative spending. The criticism is intense, focusing on procedural deficiencies (lack of transparency) and management failures (loss of control over resources). The government's policy approach is characterized as tax hikes without corresponding spending cuts.

Cooperation is being sought with members of parliament who trust the findings of the Chancellor of Justice and the Auditor General, and who wish to adopt the budget in a constitutional manner. The speaker refers to the hypothetical possibility of reaching a common position in the chamber if the president were to use their leverage by refusing to promulgate the budget.

The focus is exclusively national, covering the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, the State Budget Act, and the financial management of the central government.

The economic perspectives emphasize fiscal discipline, thrift, and the more efficient management of government expenditures. The speaker sharply criticizes the government's policy, which involves tax hikes (exceeding one billion euros) without any real reduction in administrative costs. It is considered crucial to regain control over resources to prevent uncontrolled maneuvering of costs.

Social issues are mentioned only in the context of the budget, noting that social benefits constitute the largest volume within the budget and are of an estimated nature. The reduction of the budget volume for institutions in the education and culture sectors is also mentioned, but specific positions on social policy topics have not been presented.

The legislative focus is on initiating and supporting the draft act on bringing the State Budget Act into compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (525 SE). The aim is to restore the parliament's competence to clearly define revenues and expenditures and to require the documentation of grants allocated to legal entities. Additionally, an appeal is made to the President to refuse to promulgate the 2025 State Budget Act.