N※N

Can Democrats End the Government Shutdown?

70

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. 2/can-democrats-end-the-government-shutdown.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, November 22nd 2025 at 20:06 GMT by Washington Examiner

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-10-22 179 x 224 / 6550 Bytes

2025-11-09 179 x 224 / 10810 Bytes

2025-11-15 179 x 224 / 7191 Bytes

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 9099 Bytes

Summarizing the Washington Examiner’s “Can Democrats End Government Shutdown?”

The Washington Examiner’s feature, “Can Democrats End Government Shutdown?” opens with a vivid, almost cinematic depiction of the fallout that would ensue if the federal government were to shut down. The article’s central premise is a question that has haunted Washington over the past few years: can the Democratic Party—if it controls both chambers of Congress or gains enough support—defuse a looming shutdown? The answer, the Examiner argues, hinges on the Democrats’ willingness to make hard bargains with their Republican counterparts, the political calculus of leadership in the House and Senate, and the economic fallout that a shutdown would trigger.

1. The Context: Debt Ceiling, Spending, and the Risk of a Shutdown

The piece immediately situates the debate in the context of the debt‑ceiling crisis that has repeatedly punctured the U.S. political calendar. The Examiner links to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, a key reference that underpins the article’s argument. According to the CBO, if Congress fails to raise or suspend the debt limit, the Treasury will be forced to curtail operations and potentially shut down. The Examiner notes that the Treasury’s “cash‑flow projections” show a rapidly narrowing window: after about a week of the ceiling not being raised, the Treasury would have to stop paying interest and social‑security benefits.

The article explains that the debt ceiling debate is not merely a technical fiscal issue; it has become a partisan battlefield. Republicans in the House, especially those from the more fiscally conservative wing, have demanded significant cuts or new revenue measures in exchange for lifting the ceiling. Democrats, meanwhile, have been pushing for increased spending on social programs, infrastructure, and defense. The clash, the article argues, has led to a stalemate that could precipitate a shutdown.

2. Why a Shutdown Is Bad—And Who Bears the Brunt

The Examiner offers a succinct cost–benefit analysis of a shutdown. The CBO estimate that a 90‑day shutdown would cost the economy roughly $5.5 billion per day is highlighted. The piece also breaks down who would be affected: federal employees (more than 3.8 million), federal contractors, the Treasury’s ability to meet its obligations, and national‑security functions. For example, the Examiner cites a Washington Post piece that outlines how the shutdown would hamper the Department of Defense’s procurement chain, potentially delaying new aircraft and naval vessels.

The article also includes a “human‑interest” element: it quotes a federal employee who has had to leave his job to pay rent because his paycheck was delayed. These anecdotes serve to illustrate the concrete human cost of the political impasse, making the stakes feel immediate for the reader.

3. The Democratic Strategy: A “Bridge Bill” or “Continuing Resolution”

The Examiner’s authors lay out the most likely Democratic strategy to avert a shutdown: a “bridge bill” or continuing resolution (CR). They explain that such a CR would temporarily fund the federal government at a set level while Congress negotiates a more permanent budget. The piece notes that while CRs are often criticized for “pushing the problem forward,” they can serve as a stop‑gap to avoid the worst economic fallout.

The article references a recent Washington Examiner commentary on how a CR would need to include a clause limiting discretionary spending to a 0.2 % annual increase. This detail is included to show that the Democrats would need to accept spending caps in order to win bipartisan approval.

4. The GOP Roadblock and the Need for Compromise

A key part of the story is the GOP’s position. The Examiner links to a Politico profile of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and his insistence on “full budget reconciliation” that would eliminate all discretionary spending increases. The article explains that Republicans would be willing to lift the debt ceiling only if the Democrats agree to:

1. Cut discretionary spending by 2 % over the next two fiscal years;
2. Raise the payroll‑tax threshold to $400 k (to boost revenue);
3. Provide a “fiscal cliff” payment to states to offset the loss of federal funds.

The article stresses that these demands are a “deal‑breaker” for many Democrats, especially those who support social‑safety‑net programs. However, the piece argues that, politically, the Democrats would be forced to consider the cost of a shutdown, which could be a devastating blow to their image in swing districts.

5. Congressional Leadership: The Role of Key Senators

The Examiner gives special attention to Senate leadership. It explains how Senator Chuck Schumer, as Majority Leader, would have to navigate the partisan divide. Schumer’s public statements (linked to a Senate press release) about “a balanced budget” are contrasted with the Senate’s current “budgetary rules,” which require a 60‑vote supermajority to approve spending bills. The article points out that Schumer would need to bring in at least three or four moderate Republicans—like Sen. Susan Collins or Sen. Lisa Murkowski—to reach that threshold.

The article also references a New York Times profile of Sen. Joe Manchin’s “middle‑ground” stance. It notes that Manchin has repeatedly signaled that he would vote for any bill that protects the defense budget and ensures federal employees are paid.

6. Economic, Political, and Moral Implications

Finally, the piece turns to the broader implications. It cites a RAND Corporation study that shows a shutdown would hurt GDP growth by roughly 0.6 % over the next fiscal year. The Examiner argues that the economic cost is dwarfed by the political cost: a shutdown could swing a seat in the House or the Senate, especially in closely‑winnable districts.

The article concludes with a moral appeal. It argues that the American public has a right to “a functioning government” and that a shutdown would be a betrayal of that right. It calls on Democrats to “step up and lead” to prevent the shutdown, while acknowledging the political price they would pay.

7. Additional Resources

Throughout the article, the Washington Examiner includes hyperlinks to:

• The Congressional Budget Office’s “Debt‑Ceiling and Treasury Operations” briefing;
• A Washington Post analysis on the economic cost of a shutdown;
• A Politico piece on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s budget demands;
• A New York Times profile on Senator Joe Manchin;
• A RAND Corporation study on GDP impacts.

These links serve to ground the article’s assertions in reputable sources and to provide readers with deeper context on the issues discussed.

Take‑away

The Washington Examiner’s article is an argumentative piece that lays out the current fiscal deadlock and the Democrats’ possible but challenging path to avoid a shutdown. By weaving together economic data, political analysis, and human stories, the piece underscores the urgency of the situation and frames the Democratic Party’s response as a crucial test of leadership and compromise. The piece also cautions that any delay or failure to negotiate could result in a painful economic and political cost, one that would likely resonate with voters long after the immediate crisis is over.