Agenda Profile: Rain Epler
Draft law amending the State Budget Act (511 SE) - Second Reading
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
Political Position
The central theme is increasing the transparency of the state budget and strengthening the Riigikogu's oversight of the government, which he deems inadequate and paradoxical within the current procedure. He sharply criticizes the foundations and metrics used for drafting the budget and demands that limits be placed on the executive branch regarding budget reallocation. His stance is strongly procedural, emphasizing the need for improved parliamentary scrutiny.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates deep expertise regarding the structure, classification, and procedural processes of the state budget, using technical terms such as "expenditures by economic content" and "reallocations." He emphasizes the need to make the main budget expenditure-based and refers to the existence of state open data concerning the financing of NGOs. He criticizes the structure of the budget’s "soft metrics" and the voluminous supplementary document (700 pages).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The tone is critical, combative, and occasionally ironic, especially regarding the coalition and the media (ERR). It employs logical arguments concerning the necessity of budget control, but also includes sharp accusations (e.g., propaganda) and anecdotal examples (e.g., a conversation with an ERR journalist). The style is formal, yet it contains direct appeals to the public (to visit Uusi Uudised or the Facebook page).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is an active legislator, submitting amendments to the draft State Budget Act together with a colleague. He/She actively engages in public outreach, publishing files concerning the funding of NGOs based on state open data. He/She regularly directs the public to visit his/her social media channels and the website Uued Uudised.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is directed at the coalition, which is criticized for reducing Riigikogu control and for the lack of budget transparency. He/She also criticizes the coalition for procedural tactics, noting that while their proposals are considered, they are then analogously rewritten. Furthermore, he/she accuses ERR of engaging in propaganda instead of journalism, calling into question their ability to utilize public data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker works closely with Martin Helme, with whom he jointly submitted significant amendments to the budget act. He also supportively referenced colleague Sõerd’s arguments concerning the flaws in the budget structure. He demonstrated openness to discussing the threshold for reallocating funds between ministries but criticized the coalition's willingness to compromise.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely on national and central government financial management issues, particularly the process of adopting the State Budget Act. Specific regional or local topics are absent.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
He supports strong fiscal discipline and transparency, demanding that limits be placed on the executive branch regarding budget reallocation. He criticizes the expenditure of public funds on non-profit organizations whose activities (such as axe throwing) should, in his view, be financed by private funds contributed by interested individuals. He advocates for cost-based budgeting.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed indirectly by criticizing the activities of NGOs funded by the state budget. He/She questions the use of public funds for activities such as "promoting axe throwing" or "nature treks for pondering life," suggesting that these should not be state budgetary priorities.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the amendment of the State Budget Act (Bill 511 SE), particularly making budget itemization mandatory and restricting ministers' authority to transfer budget funds. He was the initiator of the proposal that led to the mandatory budget breakdown, and strongly opposed the rejection of the proposal concerning the Riigikogu’s oversight of fund transfers. He advocates for better control over budget execution.
2 Speeches Analyzed