Four potential White House hopefuls were forced to take stands on an array of hot-button issues late Thursday and into Friday as the battle for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination played itself out on the Senate floor.
At 3:29 a.m. Friday, senators approved a Republican-crafted federal budget blueprint. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted for the plan, which endorses repealing the Affordable Care Act, reshaping federal health care for the poor and elderly, and shrinking the federal deficit to zero over 10 years.
Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky were the only two Republicans in the chamber who voted against the measure. The budget resolution was approved on a 52-46 vote after lawmakers spent nearly 16 hours slogging through more than 50 amendments that carry no legal weight if approved.
Still, the symbolic votes carried promise or pitfalls for the Republican White House aspirants – be it talking points to tout on the campaign trail or ammunition for negative ads by opponents.
Cruz, the only person in either party so far to formally announce his presidential candidacy, said he voted against the Republican-crafted resolution because “we need meaningful entitlement reforms, without budget gimmicks.”
“I cannot support a budget that claims to balance in the year 2025 by utilizing revenue increases generated by Obamacare taxes,” he said in a statement released after his vote.
The Senate GOP budget plan seeks to cut $5.1 trillion in federal spending over 10 years with steep cuts in entitlement programs, such as food stamps, and other domestic programs without raising taxes.
The blueprint also increases defense spending by $38 billion, funded off-budget through the oversees contingency operations fund, which is used to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fund isn’t subject to the same spending caps that other federal programs and agencies face under the budget-cutting measure known as sequestration.
Paul didn’t say why he voted against the budget Friday. He did offer an amendment to increase military spending by about $190 billion over two years accompanied by cuts in science, education and natural resources programs. The amendment failed, with only four senators – Paul, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and David Vitter, R-La. – voting for it.
Speaking on the Senate floor on behalf of his amendment Thursday, Paul called defense “the No. 1 priority of the federal government,” but he added that lawmakers should be willing to pay for it on the books.
“We need national defense but we should pay for it,” Paul said. “America does not project power from bankruptcy court. We need a strong national defense, but we should be honest with the American people and pay for it.”
With their votes, Paul and Cruz were staking out political ground as outsiders with their “no” votes on the budget, according to Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
“I think Cruz and Paul are sending clear signals that they are going to fight for the conservative right and tea party vote,” Coker said. “It establishes them as outsiders, people who won’t go along to get along, vote for stuff for the sake of voting for stuff.”
Rubio and Graham gravitated toward the establishment Republican camp by voting with the Senate Republican leadership on the budget plan, Coker said. Graham had advocated boosting defense spending through the contingency account.
Rubio, along with Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., offered a separate amendment during the Senate’s “vote-a-rama” to increase defense spending next year without offsets to pay for it.
Rubio expressed disappoint that the amendment – one of 25 he submitted – failed, and he lamented that the Republican budget plan “didn’t prioritize our national security needs.” Still, he hailed the overall budget blueprint approved Friday.
“Passing this budget is a needed first step to chart a new direction from the disastrous one President Obama has had America on for over six years,” he said in a statement released after the budget vote.
Coker said Rubio was trying to play it down the middle in the “vote-a-rama,” trying to position himself as an option to the likes of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in the eyes of voters.
“If Jeb Bush falters, he wants to pick up Jeb’s people,” Coker said. “Rubio is trying to place himself similar to someone like Scott Walker, who has feet in both camps – the establishment camp and the anti-establishment, outsider camp, which includes the tea party.”
Whether the positions the four potential contenders took during the voting marathon help them or come back to haunt them will be determined as Campaign 2016 progresses.
“This is the first do-si-do,” Coker said. “By the time we get to people running the first TV ads in Iowa, these votes will be long forgotten.”
Chris Adams, Maria Recio and Sean Cockerham of the Washington Bureau contributed.