Sources of funding for Navalny's campaign. And I have a counter-interest in their party wallets. More precisely, to the sources of their financing. After all, if these gentlemen are trying to find something suspicious in other people’s money, then it means they are sure that everything is in order with their finances. Well, let’s check United Russia and Zhirinovsky.

So, more than 2.5 billion rubles (55%) were allocated to United Russia in 2012 by the federal budget. But of particular interest to us are donations from individuals and legal entities in the amount of 1.2 billion rubles (22%). Who are these good people? What kind of patriotic organizations are these?

As you can see, 80% of donations from legal entities in 2012 were transfers from numerous funds to support United Russia, created as if from tracing paper. From somewhere these absolutely independent, non-profit foundations found 771.8 million rubles, which they donated to United Russia in the name of Stability and Putin.

I’m just wondering - what could be the reason why this particular financing scheme was chosen - first someone donates to the fund, and only then the fund donates to the party? Why not immediately join the party? After all, regional branches of United Russia are also legal entities and can accept donations. Maybe the whole point is in the restrictions on donations established by the legislation on political parties? May be, someone really wants to get around these restrictions? May be, someone wants to legalize black cash in this way? Or maybe, someone wants to hide some individuals or legal entities who donated money so that it would not be visible in the party's published consolidated financial report?

A comparison with the financial report of United Russia for 2011 will help us understand the reason.

Do you understand what follows from this? As soon as the federal budget increased funding for political parties in 2012, donations from legal entities to the United Russia party immediately magically decreased compared to 2011!

And these same donations from legal entities decreased by exactly the amount by which budget funding increased! It’s as if they took 1 billion 791 million rubles less from one pocket, while from the other they took 1 billion 691 million more! Exactly 100 million rubles were not enough, oh, what a pity) Listen, however, how attentive and accurate voluntary donors are in United Russia! They calculate donations so accurately that the total amount of voluntary donations and budgetary allocations remains practically unchanged compared to the previous year, and what changes between items - so who cares)

In the financial report of United Russia for 2012, there are 132 legal entities that donated more than 400 thousand rubles to the party. each (including the above funds), in 2011 there were 260 of them.

And it’s strange - how did hundreds of independent legal entities and non-profit foundations across the country manage to agree on the amounts of donations among themselves so that in the end the result was exactly the same amount that was covered by the increased funding from the budget? Could it really be that they they lowered the donation figures according to the order ?

Or maybe not just numbers - but also the money itself for donations ?

« All sponsors of United Russia will be able to fit in this restaurant,” says Forbes’ interlocutor, who previously worked in the central office of the party, looking around at a really small establishment in the center of Moscow. There are no more than 20 tables in the hall. “This means,” he continues, “in order to circumvent the legal requirements for the minimum level of donations, you will have to split your flows into several streams and pass them through dummy legal entities. A sign of such schemes may be the relationship between firms, which sponsors will try to hide from attention... In reality, the reports submitted to the Central Election Commission are only a visible part of the financing, which becomes a cover for cash flows that have already formed a special sector of the shadow economy ».
...
In United Russia, as political strategists and one regional administration official said, in most regions, fundraising for local funds to support United Russia is carried out by employees of local administrations on the orders of the governor.

Let's take, for example, the Yaroslavl region. There, as it turned out in April 2013, OJSC Yaroslavl Sales Company transferred 55 million rubles to the Yaroslavl Regional Public Fund for Support of the United Russia WFP.

Wherein “The main owner of JSC YASK as of February 14 of this year (more than 80% in the authorized capital and almost 90% of shares) is TNS Energo Group of Companies LLC. In turn, 100% of the authorized capital of TNS Energo belongs to Sunflake Limited, a company registered in Cyprus .
...
United Russia responds to all suspicions: the main thing is that the rules of the law are not violated. “We check all legal requirements. Everything else is the business of the organizations themselves, their commercial secrets... I didn’t notice the word “transparency” in the law, I don’t know what meaning you put into this word,” says the head of the central executive committee of United Russia, Dmitry Travkin, in a conversation with Forbes".

And it’s these United Russia members who teach us transparency, huh?! What monstrous, unbearable impudence!

Now about Zhirinovsky.

477 million 737 thousand - from the federal budget
203 million 989 thousand - donations from legal entities.
8 million 632 thousand - from individuals.

The remaining articles are unimportant; for those interested, see the report.

There are several legal entities-donators.

LLC "GIFEST" (via I) - 43,000,000 rubles (a very powerful company, find its website yourself and what it does)
LLC "LESPROM-E" - 43,000,000 rubles (this is also a very well-known company, and most importantly, it definitely donates the same amount as the other donor)

LLC "TechTorgGroup" - 30,000,000 rubles
LLC "Trading House Klen" - 30,000,000 rubles
LLC "Garant Invest" - 30,000,000 rubles

Why do they all donate the same amount? Was it a coincidence?

Well, to the heap LLC "VERTICAL" - 21,000,000, LLC "Kalibron" - 2,000,000, LLC "Kvass Lux" - 2,000,000, LLC "Design Workshop" - 1,049,200, OJSC "Moloko" - 1,000,000 , OJSC Timber Industry Enterprise Turtas - 616,000, LLC Barnaul Grid Company - 500,000.

My questions are: what kind of companies are they? What are they doing? Where do they get the money from?

Financial report of the Liberal Democratic Party for 2011. Here are the top 8 largest donors:

Optima Group LLC - 43,000,000
LLC "MetalExpoCenter" - 43,000,000
LLC "Servismobile" - 43,000,000
LLC "Metalstroykompleks" - 43,000,000
LLC "UralPromStroy" - 43,000,000
LLC "MagStroy" - 43,000,000
Odion Group LLC - 43,000,000
LLC "Gifest" - 43,000,000
LLC "Vertical" - 43,000,000

I suggest that Mr. Zhirinovsky find here “the same amounts” of 10-15 thousand rubles. I also suggest that he calculate the total amount of funds in these wallets and compare them with the volume of donations to Navalny’s election fund - this refers to the words that “the money goes mainly through Yandex.” If Zhirinovsky cannot do this, and does not publicly apologize for his words, then Zhirinovsky is a liar. The same applies to his phrase about “every 10 seconds.”

And I don’t even expect answers from United Russia - after all, the head of its central executive committee has already explained to Forbes magazine that " I didn’t notice the word transparency in the law", so what can you talk about with such people...

https://www.site/2018-06-15/rossiyskie_partii_na_75_finansiruyutsya_iz_byudzheta_biznesu_politicheskie_sily_ne_interesny

"Historical record"

Russian parties are financed 75% from the budget; business is not interested in political forces

Kremlin press service

The parties “United Russia”, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and “A Just Russia” are 75% financed from the federal budget, which has become a historical record. This was reported by the RBC publication, which analyzed the parties’ consolidated financial reports for 2017, published on the CEC website.

So, one vote of a voter who voted for one or another party that received more than 3% in the State Duma elections costs 152 rubles. Until 2006, a voice cost from 1 to 3.6 rubles, since 2009 - already 20 rubles, in 2015 the cost of a vote increased to 110 rubles. Parties whose candidate received 3% of the vote or more in the presidential election receive a one-time payment of 20 rubles for each of them. By the way, now State Duma deputies of all factions are in favor of indexing this payment; they want to equate it to the cost of a vote in elections to the lower house of parliament.

United Russia's income decreased by more than one and a half times year-on-year (hereinafter calculations are adjusted for inflation to 2017), amounting to 5.4 billion rubles in 2017. The budget of the party in power consists of 80% of federal budget funds. By comparison, in 2016, more than half of the party's annual income came from donations from companies and citizens. United Russia's financial dependence on state money in 2017 is the strongest in the last 13 years. Previously, from 1-8 to 69% of party income came from the state budget. United Russia's dependence on these revenues was minimal in 2005-2007.

The LDPR's income in 2017 amounted to about 1.09 billion rubles. This is half the level in 2016 and the lowest figure in the last five years, despite increased government funding. The party depends on the state even more than United Russia: in 2017, almost 97% of the LDPR’s income came from payments from the budget. This is a record figure for parliamentary parties. Never before has the LDPR been so dependent on government subsidies. In 2005-2016, the “budget” component amounted to from 4 to 75% of all its income. In the pre-election year of 2011, the LDPR lived almost on donations alone (83% of all party income). In 2013-2014, donations accounted for more than half of the party's budget.

The income of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in 2017 amounted to 1.3 billion rubles, which is 1.7 times lower compared to 2016. In 2017, the party depended on budget payments by 80%. Over the past seven years, the party got rid of significant dependence on this money only in the pre-election years of 2011 and 2016.

The income of A Just Russia decreased by 3.3 times compared to 2016 - 667.8 million rubles in 2017). The party was less dependent on the state budget than others in 2017 (75%). At the same time, over the past six years, the share of government investments in the Just Russia budget has not fallen below 73%, with the exception of 2016, when it was 44%.

The law on increased state funding for political parties participating in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation (including those already held this year!) was adopted in the final reading by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Funding for parties from the budget increases 8 times. And this is against the backdrop of an increase in VAT, state duties, retirement age and other measures to fill the treasury. People invest and politicians receive. Moreover, many times more than they spent on the elections. Let's look at the numbers.

Funding for parties from the budget will increase from 20 to 152 rubles for each voter who cast his vote for a party candidate. That is, it will increase almost 8 times. If earlier such government funding required 256 million rubles, now the Russian budget will need to give 2 billion to party coffers.

A prerequisite is that parties and movements must have the support of 3% of the votes. The new law also applies to the presidential elections of the Russian Federation held on March 18, 2018.

This means that the costs will be reimbursed by the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, their candidates gained more than 3%, United Russia will be left with nothing, since Vladimir Putin ran for president as a self-nominated candidate, spending 400 million rubles from his own election fund. But if Putin again represented United Russia in the 2018 elections, as in 2012, the ruling party could count on 8.5 billion rubles (with 67% approval) or even 10 billion rubles (with 76%).

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation will return 1.3 billion rubles, the Liberal Democratic Party - 631 million rubles, the amounts are calculated according to the percentage of voter support for candidates. At the same time, the protege of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Pavel Grudinin spent 227 million rubles on the elections, and the eternal candidate of the LDPR Vladimir Zhirinovsky spent 398 million. Very good “income”!

Opinions are already being expressed that all this is very similar to bribery of the so-called systemic opposition.

Information from Russian Press: The law on state support for political movements and associations appeared in 2001 against the backdrop of the law on parties. In Russia in last years almost all parliamentary parties, United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia, have successfully mastered the state funding corridor in the range from 70 to 80%.United Russia has become especially dependent on federal tranches from the budget. Donations from companies and citizens to it have been steadily declining in recent years, so party functionaries have to place more and more hopes on the state treasury.

Photo: RIA Novosti, Polit.ru

We continue to examine the “money bags” of each of the parties participating in the State Duma elections. In our two previous materials, we predicted a significant change in sponsors in the ranks of the election list of United Russia and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. This process will also affect the old-timer of the domestic parliament - the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). Its permanent leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, changed some of his former sponsors, and even won in this process. The correspondent of “Our Version” talks about the new and old “personal wallets” of this party.

Like the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the peak of the financial power of the Liberal Democratic Party is in the past. For example, in the 2003 State Duma elections, Zhirinovites were supported by such wealthy corporations as Basic Element (Russian Aluminum), Alfa Bank, Nafta-Moscow (formerly Soyuznefteexport) and LUKOIL. Legends were formed on the sidelines of the Duma about the party’s ability to make money by lobbying someone’s business interests. After all, the LDPR faction has time after time remained in a significant minority, inferior in number not only to the party in power, but also to the same Communist Party of the Russian Federation. However, the Communists traditionally lagged behind Zhirinov’s party in terms of the volume of the party treasury during the pre-election period. Too flexible, like no other party, the position of the LDPR was able to change depending on the wishes of the customer! Which is one of the main advantages of a lobbyist.

The federal leadership no longer refuses to finance the election campaign from the regional office. According to the UralInformBuro agency, Tyumen and Chelyabinsk liberal democrats received 5 million rubles from Moscow, Kurgan - 3 million

This skill, of course, has not disappeared anywhere. However, the monopoly position of United Russia in the State Duma, established since 2007, has deprived large corporations of their previous active interest in the services of Zhirinovsky and his comrades. Therefore, already at the 2007 State Duma elections, the bulk of the party’s coffers were replenished by 15 little-known closed joint-stock companies and LLCs, that is, representatives of regional business. The situation has not changed now, only the cohort of sponsors had to be updated...

Zhirinovsky himself, in a recent interview, stated that the LDPR has no sponsors: “We don’t ask anyone, so as not to look like beggars. The LDPR lives on the 10 million rubles it officially receives from the budget every month. I myself also live only on the Duma salary.” However, according to recent data from the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, even the official budget of this party is already 343 million rubles - 143 million more than four years ago. Moreover, in terms of the volume of the LDPR treasury, it is ahead of all (!) parties, except for “Right Cause,” which was benefited by infusions from its ex-leader, oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov. For comparison: the election budget of the Patriots of Russia party is only 160 thousand rubles.

Director of the Department of Regional and Municipal Programs of the Center for Political Technologies Andrey Maksimov notes: “The LDPR usually conducts a fairly large-scale election campaign and relies on the active positioning of its leader. By attracting numerous sponsors to its list, the LDPR usually has such financial resources, which distinguish it favorably from other parties.” General Director of the Center for Political Information Alexey Mukhin believes: “Zhirinovsky in Lately worked a lot and willingly with sponsors. The LDPR decided to abandon the scandalous lists, which made it possible to attract serious sponsors who count on its lobbying potential in the new Duma.”

As stated by the LDPR curator for the Ural region federal district Vladimir Taskaev, However, in the opinion knowledgeable people, this money is only enough for a minimum of advertising. Most of the election budget is spent on black or gray accounting, and here the entire calculation is on regional sponsors.

On this topic

Of those who previously represented the interests of Russian oligarchs in the LDPR, perhaps only the former deputy general director of the LUKOIL company will remain in its future faction. Western Siberia» Vasily Tarasyuk, who currently holds the post of deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Local Self-Government. As befits a person from this corporation, he heads the regional group of the LDPR election list, uniting the Khanty-Mansi and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs - the most oil and gas producing regions of the country. However, Tarasyuk can be considered more of a representative of Nafta-Moscow, since immediately before his election to the Duma he served as general director of the Afipsky oil refinery, owned by this company.

The owner of Nafta-Moscow himself, entrepreneur Suleiman Kerimov, who ranked seventh among Russian billionaires with a fortune of $12.6 billion, moved from the LDPR to United Russia (ER). Other former eminent “wallets” of Zhirinovsky’s party also went there - ex-deputy general director of Basic Element Valentin Bobyrev, former vice-president of Alfa Bank Konstantin Vetrov. The former owner of the Moscow National Bank and Unicombank, Ashot Yeghiazaryan, is on the run from the investigation...

Curious intersections between the Duma factions of the LDPR and United Russia will continue in the future State Duma. Thus, the St. Petersburg regional group of the LDPR list is headed by the former chairman of the board of directors of the insurance company RusMed and JSC Farmakon, the largest pharmaceutical plant in St. Petersburg, Denis Volchek, who is now deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on the Financial Market. It is curious that the head of the same committee, Vladislav Reznik (United Russia), who is considered one of the main lobbyists of her faction, was also a member of the board of directors of RusMed. This is such a “coincidence”...

No. 1 in the regional group of the LDPR list, which includes the Republic of Mari El and the Kirov region, is a member of the State Duma Committee on economic policy and entrepreneurship Kirill Cherkasov, former chairman of the board of directors of Kirov Stroyproekt-Service LLC. This structure belongs to the regional oligarch, the president of Sputnik OJSC Oleg Valenchuk, who is now a member of the same Duma committee, but only from United Russia (!) and occupies a passing place in the current election list of the party in power. Moreover, a member of the LDPR faction, Cherkasov, was among the founders of the public fund for supporting United Russia - along with the founders of this party.

As already mentioned, the LDPR’s main calculation is now on regional sponsors. Some of them have been in this factional system for a long time. The highest place among them - No. 10 in the federal part of the list - is occupied by the former general director of Rosnefteresurs CJSC and co-owner of the Tuapse meat processing plant, and now deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Procedural Legislation, Yuri Napso. The Sverdlovsk regional group of the list is headed by the owner of the Ural-Baikal construction company, Vladimir Taskaev, who is, naturally, a member of the Duma Committee on Construction and Land Relations.

No. 1 in the group that unites the Khabarovsk Territory, the Sakhalin Region and the Jewish Autonomous Okrug is the ex-general director of the timber trading LLC Alkuma, Sergei Furgal, now deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Federation Affairs and Regional Policy. The Yaroslavl regional group is headed by the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, Leonid Slutsky, a former banker who worked in senior positions at Prominvestbank and Investcredit Bank.

Some of the old ones give up their places to new “wallets”. The best illustration of this process is the Volgograd regional group, where only the second and most likely unpassable line is allocated to Andrei Lebedev, a member of the LDPR faction in the State Duma, the former chairman of the board of directors of Energomashbank OJSC. Ahead of him in the same group is another businessman - Deputy General Director of Volzhskprodkompleks CJSC Dmitry Litvintsev.

A new sponsor also appeared in the Chelyabinsk regional group, which was impoverished after the sponsor of the local Zhirinovites, businessman Oleg Kolesnikov, left for United Russia, where he received a passing place on the list. The next “wallet” of the South Ural branch was the 33-year-old son of the president of the Eurasian Construction Company, CEO"Industrial Investments" company Sergey Vainshtein.

The original “replacement” also occurred in relation to the former State Duma deputy from the LDPR, a large timber merchant from Leningrad region Damira Shadayeva. In the Tatarstan regional group of the LDPR list is... his wife Irina Shadayeva, already elected as a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the same, of course, Leningrad region. As they say, a holy place is never empty...

Based on the results of consideration of the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planning period 2015-2016, presented by the Government of the Russian Federation, the LDPR faction makes the following proposals.

Proposals from the LDPR faction

to the draft resolution State Duma Federal Assembly Russian Federation "On the adoption in the first reading of draft federal law No. 348499-6 "On the federal budget for 2014 and for the planning period of 2015 and 2016" and on the main characteristics of the federal budget"

Based on the results of consideration of the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planning period 2015-2016, presented by the Government of the Russian Federation, the LDPR faction notes the following.

The main macroeconomic parameters of the socio-economic forecast economic development RF for 2014-2016 contain indicators with overly optimistic data. If the LDPR faction has no objections to the forecast data on gas and oil prices, then achieving target indicators for GDP growth dynamics of 103.0% - in 2014, 103.1% - in 2015 and 103.3% - in 2016 is doubtful. The Russian Government's arguments about the revival of investment demand and the growth of consumer demand clearly have significant risks of non-fulfillment.

According to the faction, investment growth during the planning period will have a significantly lower rate, which is due to a number of factors. In general, for the economy, this is the negative dynamics of public investment, the decision made to withdraw the funded part of pension savings from non-state pension funds, a plan to increase the tax burden on real estate, the introduction of a recycling fee on domestically produced cars, a proposal to transfer Investigative committee RF powers to conduct business in the tax sphere, strengthening the competitive offer of foreign producers in connection with Russia's accession to the WTO.

For the sector of infrastructure companies and the oil and gas complex, limiting factors that further reduce investment activity will be the decision to freeze tariffs at the 2013 level for enterprises, indexation of tariffs for the population by the inflation index minus 30%, an increase in the mineral extraction tax, a projected decrease in oil and gas prices, an increase excise taxes on petroleum products of environmental class 4 and 5, as well as possible difficulties for companies in attracting financial resources.

In the consumer market, according to the faction, there is also no need to expect an increase in activity in connection with the decision taken to freeze wages for a number of categories of employees, the introduction of social standards for electricity and plans for the abolition of cross-subsidies, which will increase the population’s costs of paying for housing and communal services, projected growth unemployment and problems with single-industry towns, increasing tariffs of natural monopolies for the population, tightening competition in the labor market due to the curtailment of entrepreneurial activities of the self-employed. The strongest deterrent will be the tightening of the population lending policy on the part of commercial banks and microcredit organizations due to excessive high level debt burden of the population today and possible risks of mass defaults in the private lending market in the near future.

It should be noted that the Government has not created any prerequisites that could radically change the situation with business and investment activity in the country’s economy in the planning period compared to the current year. The reduction in the rate of insurance premiums in 2014 for the self-employed will not allow hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs who have already officially stopped working to return to the legal sector of the economy. entrepreneurial activity. And the introduction of investment incentives for projects in the Far East, the introduction of a simplified system accounting for small businesses, some other decorative changes to the current legislation will not be able to have any noticeable impact on entrepreneurial activity.

Statements by the Government about expectations related to the revival of the economy in the small business sector in connection with the introduction of a norm on providing a 15 percent quota for small businesses in connection with the start of the contract system in 2014 are also most likely groundless. Small businesses for the most part use a simplified accounting system, which reduces their chances of acting as a supplier of goods, works, and services for companies that pay VAT, as well as performing contract work for government needs using state elemental estimate standards. Enterprises that apply the single agricultural tax experience similar problems.

The proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation to increase tax pressure in order to increase revenues to the state budget, in particular, for value added tax, also causes serious concern. According to data provided in the report “Paying Taxes 2013” ​​by the consulting company PWC, the total average effective tax rate for business in Russia is more than 54.1%, which significantly exceeds the level of the tax burden in the countries of the European Union (42.6%) and in general in the global economy (44.7%). According to this indicator, Russia has already surpassed almost all major economic the developed countries and reached number one in Europe. And the refusal of the Government of the Russian Federation to discuss the proposal of the LDPR faction to abolish VAT and replace it with a sales tax not only does not give entrepreneurs a clear message to improve the business and investment climate in the country, but also jeopardizes the possibility of executing the federal budget in the planning period. It should also be noted that Russia is already losing the competition for investments to its closest neighbors, for example, Kazakhstan due to softer tax regimes. This circumstance can have a very negative impact on the financial situation of the budgets of the regions bordering such countries.

In addition, the conclusions of the Government of the Russian Federation about the share of revenues in the federal budget from the oil and gas sector at 57% in 2016 also raise serious doubts.

Significant concerns are also raised by the predicted dynamics of changes in federal budget income tax revenues due to the clearly unfavorable economic situation and factors that are taken into account in the forecast socio-economic development of the country: this includes a projected decrease in oil and gas prices, negative dynamics of the foreign trade balance, depreciation of the ruble, a sharp increase in the fund wages, a decrease in the volume of government procurement in the planning period, an increase in the tax burden.

At the same time, the Government of the Russian Federation did not fully use the reserves for increasing budget revenues. In particular, the issue of limiting the possibility of using tax evasion schemes using offshore schemes in the domestic economy remains completely unexplored. Back in the summer, the LDPR introduced a bill that would allow the state to take control of semi-legal and outright criminal methods of withdrawing funds, including the federal budget, through low-tax jurisdictions.

The estimated revenues from the privatization of federal property are negligible (3 billion rubles annually), as well as the estimated revenues from the sale of shares of the largest companies (196.8 billion, 158.5 billion, 99.9 billion rubles). In addition, questions arise about the appropriateness of budget investments and state participation in the capitalization of companies that are included in the privatization plan (RusHydro, Sheremetyevo International Airport, United Grain Company, Rusnano, etc.).

When forming the draft federal budget, the Government of the Russian Federation practically did not develop a plan for using schemes for transferring large blocks of shares to a long-term trust as an alternative to privatization in conditions of unstable market conditions and the obvious undervaluation of state assets. At the same time, trust agreements must secure profitability at a level higher interest rates formed when attracting credit funds. Such schemes could provide additional income and create the preconditions for more efficient management of state assets.

The profitability from placing funds from the reserve fund and the National Welfare Fund remains at an unacceptably low level. Russia is significantly inferior in terms of efficiency of use of funds to foreign states that have created similar funds ( Pension Fund Norway "Overseas" and the Alaska Permanent Fund).

The possibility of partial repayment of the federal budget deficit through more efficient management of state assets is not being considered - in particular, the possibility of partial assignment or early repayment of debt of foreign states and legal entities to Russian Federation.

The reserves associated with the launch of state lotteries are not fully used in the draft budget.

The trend towards an increase in the share of classified items in the draft budget raises questions (24.8% of budget expenditures are secret).

On the expenditure side of the budget, there are serious concerns about underfunding of entire sectors of the economy. The LDPR faction expresses its concern about the negative dynamics as a percentage of GDP for such important expenditure items as “Education”, “Healthcare”, “Culture, Cinematography”, “Housing and Communal Services”. At the same time, the share of spending on health care and education as a percentage of GDP in the Russian Federation is lower than in some CIS countries - such as Ukraine, Belarus and even Moldova. And in some areas, for example, such as air ambulance, funding is provided below all expectations. minimum needs, which jeopardizes not only the health, but also the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation - residents of remote territories.

The LDPR faction cannot agree with the proposal to abandon indexation, taking into account the level of inflation (consumer prices), of salaries for military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, as well as employees of internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation and other law enforcement agencies.

Against this background, the LDPR extremely negatively assesses the Government’s proposal to increase the level of salaries for federal officials in 2014 and notes that the limitation of the wage fund in federal departments, as well as the establishment of upper limits on monetary remuneration of top managers in state-owned companies, companies with state participation, federal state unitary enterprises etc. is a reserve for reducing federal budget expenditures, which was not used by the Government of the Russian Federation when forming the federal budget. At the same time, the volume of social guarantees, including monthly monetary remuneration, monetary incentives and other payments to heads of federal departments cannot exceed the volume of similar guarantees for members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, as provided for federal law No. 3-FZ.

According to the faction, when forming the expenditure side of the budget, the Government of the Russian Federation did not include allocations (or a clearly insufficient amount) for such industries that are strategically important for the country’s economy as “Machine tool industry”, “Heavy engineering”, “Aviation aggregate engineering”, “Aircraft instrument making”, “ Aviation science and technology”, “Small aviation”, “Agricultural engineering, food and processing industry”, which threatens the economic, food and military security of the country.

The feed industry and the production of biological additives for animals are not provided with funds, which, in light of Russia’s accession to the WTO, casts doubt on the competitiveness of the entire livestock industry Agriculture.

The faction also considers the level of funding for the activities of the GCSC network abroad to be insufficient, which undermines the international authority of the Russian Federation.

Due to the fact that the draft federal budget was formed for the first time on a program-target principle, the LDPR faction expresses concern about the low quality of indicators of state programs and, first of all, the set of target indicators proposed by the Government. Thus, state program 034 “Socio-economic development of the Far East and the Baikal region”, despite the goals specified in the program: “Creating conditions for the accelerated development of the Far East, turning it into a competitive region with diversified economy, improvement of social demographic situation in the Far East and the Baikal region" in the list of indicators does not contain a single indicator related to demographics, and the line "Share of manufacturing industries in the structure of GDP, %" provides digital data for 2014 - 2016. without any positive dynamics.

In State Program 027 “Development of Foreign Economic Activity”, the state program indicators do not correspond to the budget parameters, in particular, in terms of the indicator “Growth rate of exports of goods in general.”

GP 023 “Information Society” - indicators do not reflect priorities aimed at efficient use budget funds. According to the faction, it would be logical to include in the indicators the transition of Russian Post to break-even mode. And in GP030 “Energy Efficiency and Energy Development” add a social indicator that characterizes the dynamics of the population’s attitude towards the state’s tariff policy for electricity.

We consider it timely and logical to include an indicator characterizing the dynamics of labor productivity in the industry in each state program.

The lack of transparency in management decisions when selecting infrastructure investment projects for financing from the National Welfare Fund is of concern.

Serious concerns regarding the execution of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are caused by the transfer of additional powers to the constituent entities without proper support by appropriations from the federal budget.

In connection with the above, the LDPR faction in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation proposes to include the following comments in the State Duma Resolution on the adoption of the bill:

1. The degree of elaboration and comprehensive assessment of all factors on the basis of which the forecast of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for 2013-2016 is based raises serious concerns about the failure to meet the main macroeconomic parameters taken as the basis when drawing up the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planning period 2015-2016.
2. When developing the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation, the Government did not fully use the possible reserves for increasing the revenue side of the budget (limiting the use of offshore schemes; increasing income from privatization and sale of shares of the largest companies; using long-term trust schemes for state assets; a less conservative strategy for allocating funds from the National Welfare Fund, launching state lotteries, setting targets aimed at increasing labor productivity and bringing state-owned companies and enterprises to a break-even and subsidy-free level, etc.)
3. The strategy of the Government of the Russian Federation aimed at increasing the tax burden at the present stage of the country’s development cannot be considered correct. The tax burden in Russia has already reached its maximum possible value and does not stimulate development modern production with a high level of added value. A possible replacement of VAT with a sales tax could significantly accelerate the pace of economic development and increase the tax base.
4. Underfunding of such industries as “Education”, “Healthcare”, “Culture, Cinematography”, “Housing and Communal Services”, “Machine Tool Industry”, “Heavy Engineering”, “Aviation Unit Manufacturing”, “Aviation Instrument Making”, “Aviation Science and Technology” ", "Small aviation", "Agricultural engineering, food and processing industry", which threatens the economic, food and military security of the country and creates social tension in society. Provide budgetary allocations within the framework of the state program “Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Markets for Agricultural Products, Raw Materials and Food” for measures to develop the feed industry and the production of dietary supplements for animals. To propose to the Government of the Russian Federation to increase allocations for the functioning of the GCSC network abroad.
5. When forming the expenditure side of the Russian Federation budget, the Government did not fully use possible reserves for reducing expenses (reducing the wage fund in federal departments, as well as establishing upper limits on monetary remuneration for top managers in state-owned companies, companies with state participation, federal state unitary enterprises, etc.; termination allocation of budgetary allocations for companies included in the privatization plan).
6. When forming sources for repaying the budget deficit, the Government of the Russian Federation did not take into account the possibility of partial assignment or early repayment of debt of foreign states and legal entities to the Russian Federation, as well as the attraction of temporarily free Money state-owned companies and companies with state participation.
7. Recommend that the Government of the Russian Federation develop mechanisms to reduce accounts payable subjects of the Russian Federation before commercial banks through the procedure of placement of bond issues and acquisition valuable papers subjects at the expense of funds from the National Welfare Fund or alternative sources.
8. Finalize government programs taking into account the comments made. Ensure transparency when choosing infrastructure investment projects for financing from the federal budget or funds, taking into account the maximum efficiency of such projects and return on investment.