Kentucky's Rand Paul Was The Only GOP Senator To Vote Against Budget

WASHINGTON, DC — Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky the lone opposing GOP vote against the federal budget plan passed Thursday night.

The plan includes rules that will allow Republicans to get tax legislation through the Senate without Democratic votes and without fear of a Democratic filibuster. But the GOP's narrow 52-48 majority in the Senate will be difficult for leadership to navigate, as illustrated by the Republicans' multiple failures to pass legislation repealing and replacing "Obamacare."

President Trump insisted over Twitter on Friday that Paul would be with him in the end on taxes, even though the senator has been critical of the tax package as it's emerged thus far.

Trump wrote, "The Budget passed late last night, 51 to 49. We got ZERO Democrat votes with only Rand Paul (he will vote for Tax Cuts) voting against........This now allows for the passage of large scale Tax Cuts (and Reform), which will be the biggest in the history of our country!"

The House has passed a different budget, but House Republicans signaled they would simply accept the Senate plan to avoid any potential of delaying the tax measure.

"I look forward to swift passage and to working with the president on tax reform," House Budget Committee Chairman Diane Black, R-Tenn., said Friday.

Republicans are looking for accomplishments following an embarrassing drought of legislative achievements despite controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House. Republican lawmakers publicly admit that failure on taxes would be politically devastating with control of the House and Senate at stake in next year's midterm elections.

"It would be a complete disaster," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said after the final budget vote.

But Republicans are split on taxes. A restive rump of House Republicans from high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California staunchly oppose the tax plan's proposed elimination of the federal deduction for state and local taxes. They maintain it would hurt low- to mid-income taxpayers and subject them to being taxed twice.

Photo by Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images