Paulsen Explains 'No' Vote on Fiscal Cliff Deal

Congressman Erik Paulsen's 'no' vote based on lack of "long-term solution to cut spending and fundamentally reform our outdated tax code."

Representative Erik Paulsen (MN-03) released the following statement after voting against the Senate deal regarding the fiscal cliff:  

“When I first ran for Congress, I said that Washington was broken," Paulsen wrote. "Unfortunately, that is still the case. The Senate deal fails to bring any meaningful solution to reign in government spending or reduce the budget deficit. At a time when Washington borrows 46 cents on every dollar it spends, we need a long term solution to cut spending and fundamentally reform our outdated tax code."

Paulsen currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and is co-chair of the Congressional Medical Technology Caucus. He represents several area communities, including the Lake Minnetonka area, Maple Grove, Plymouth and Edina.

“It’s unconscionable that the Senate chose to give hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to industries like Hollywood and NASCAR, but chose not to stop the devastating new tax on the life-saving and life-improving medical device industry. The medical device tax, which took effect yesterday, will harm one of Minnesota’s true success stories and threaten its 35,000 high quality jobs.” 


For more information on Rep. Paulsen’s work in Congress visit www.paulsen.house.gov.

Kelly January 03, 2013 at 01:00 PM
So, while decrying how broken Washington is, he demonstrates an excellent example of why. He rightly criticizes the pork that was attached to the bill that gives credits to NASCAR and Hollywood (not to mention the mining industry), but rails about how his own pork for the medical-device industry wasn't included. Such hypocrisy.
Leonard Freeman January 03, 2013 at 03:16 PM
Very disappointing. Or course the deal was imperfect, and more work needed down the road on spending cuts, but this was the time to step across the aisle and make a difference in a crisis. The NO puts Erick on the same page as Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman, not good company for representing the 3rd district
John C January 03, 2013 at 04:36 PM
John C It is now clear that Erik was voted in, in part, by the 98% "lower income" constituents and is representing only the top 2%. His twisted logic does not fool those of us who recognize blind allegiance to party (or maybe only to Grover Nordquist) over the "General Welfare" of "We the People". Yes, spending must be addressed, but that is no reason to vote no to this last minute critical need to keep the economic recovery on track. Spending reductions will take a very long time to negotiate,
Loretta Holscher January 03, 2013 at 04:41 PM
Just more self interest. Makes me sick - Paulsen is just another cog in the dysfunctional wheel called Congress. Is anyone ready to step up to the plate and make tough decisions? Excuses, excuses.....
Jan Vickery Lillemo January 03, 2013 at 07:11 PM
I am disappointed, but not surprised. I hope the voters remember this in 2014 - how he risked the economy of the United States because of his lack of desire to compromise.
kristine jessen January 03, 2013 at 11:05 PM
What part of "life saving and life improving" and "35,000 high quality jobs" do you not understand ???
kristine jessen January 03, 2013 at 11:12 PM
the ONLY reason spending reductions will take a long, long time to negotiate is because President Obama has a "mandate" from the idiots who elected him!! as such, he apparently did not feel the need to negotiate REAL spending cuts "at this time". when will he negotiate real spending cuts? just spitballing here, John, but i'm thinking when hell freezes over.
kristine jessen January 03, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Representative Paulson displayed great COURAGE in voting NO to a financial fiasco shoved down his throat by spendthrift Democrats, spineless Republicans and an arrogant and manipulative President. i hope he shows similar courage when confronted by the Superstorm Sandy porkfest. LESS THAN $13 billion of the $60 billion bill goes to direct Sandy aid. the rest puts a new roof on the Smithsonian, $100 million to Headstart, $800 million to dredge harbors in St. Louis, funding an Army Corps of Engineer study of climate change, over $1 billion for highways and trains not affected by Sandy, and then there's the millions going to fishermen in Alaska and American Samoa and it goes on and on and on and on.
kristine jessen January 03, 2013 at 11:36 PM
if you voted for Barack Obama then YOU have put the economy of the United States in grave peril. i sincerely doubt that you have any real knowledge of economics other that what you get from your TV or you would have known that President Obama is hell bent on turning the USA into a third world disaster. i love math and numbers because 2+2 ALWAYS = 4. Barack Obama + "progressive" liberal economics = financial devastation for the USA.
rob_h78 January 04, 2013 at 01:19 AM
So can we have an assurance from Congressman Paulsen that we will never again go to war and not fund the war while it is being fought? No more Putting the Cost of a War on the country's debt? Also, what about Medicare Part D? Would Congressman Paulsen commit to working to bring back up Medicare Part D WITH a real funding mechanism and if Congress will note re-pass Medicare Part D WITH a real funding mechanism then it will be scrapped?
rob_h78 January 04, 2013 at 01:24 AM
Given the district that Paulsen represents - there are plenty of 2%'ers that voted him in. Republicans spent like drunken sailors the last time they were in control and had no problem pushing through an unfunded $50 billion to $100 billion per year Medicare Part D program that was unfunded - AND - as an added bonus keeps the government from negotiating the cost of the drugs purchased. Republicans also never required the two recent - very, very, very expensive wars to be paid for - those were fine to run on the country's debt. BOTH Republican and Democrats love to spend money when they are in control. The difference is this: - Democrats at least say we'll spend - and here is the bill time to pay up. - Republicans will spend just as much if not more - put it on the country's debt - and then blame Democrats when the Republicans find themselves out of power.
rob_h78 January 04, 2013 at 01:28 AM
President Obama is finally helping to dig us out of the hole that Republicans left when Bush left office - losing 700,000+ jobs a month, two insanely long and expensive wars going on and on with body bags coming back home, bin Laden still on the run, the stock market shredded, - its just too depressing to go on. Just look at the turnaround under President Obama - and still Conservatives are whining - even while their stock market investments are finally making money after the Bush fiasco's....
rob_h78 January 04, 2013 at 01:32 AM
"Grave Peril"? My goodness, for "Grave Peril" all we have to do is look at the final part of the Bush Administration to see what truly "Grave Peril" is... If the stock market being up over 60% is grave peril - sign me up. If we want to look at debt - let's look at the Bush tax cuts (decreasing revenue) while he took us into two massively expensive wars that were unpaid for - those are two of the biggest drivers for the explosion of our debt. The problem for Conservatives is that they have pronounced the death of the US Economy even before Obama won his first election - they said that the stock market would crash if he was elected President - they said that we would be attacked by terrorists because they would see us as weak - and yet - I look around and none of our big buildings are gone - the stock market is up - private sector hiring is up... Too many Conservatives just can't believe that such a thing could happen so they just refuse to believe it.
john funk January 08, 2013 at 02:30 AM
Take the man at his word. He determined that his NO vote was more important than...1. Laying a huge tax increase on YOU. 2. Putting YOU at risk of another stock market dive. 3. Putting the economy and YOU at risk of another recession. 4. Bringing the recovery now underway to a stop. He is willing to do all this for YOU since he decided there was not enough in the deal for him. Well, you get what you vote for!
Timothy Hall January 08, 2013 at 09:19 AM
Since 2000 an average of a 2.4 trillion dollars has come into our Federal Government. That means about 15 trillion of liquid assets a year were created, and about 200 trillion has been accumulated. When you cash out of an investment is when you pay taxes. This is what the Democrat Party is looking at. They are coming for the money that isn't invested. The dept limit Let's say a group of billionaires start a bank and put 50 billion in their bank. Now they can buy treasury bills at a 20 to one margin. For a 50 billion dollar investment they can own a trillion worth of our dept. At 2% interest that equals 40% interest a year with no risk. In less then 3 years they have already made their 50 billion back. This is why Democrats don't care about he dept limit or raising taxes. For the most part it is billionaires taking money from millionaires. Both the tea party and occupy wall street know there is a problem. They just don't know what the problem is.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something