Democratic leader offers deal to reopen government, but Republicans sneer

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2025, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNBC

Published Fri, Nov 7 2025 2:50 PM EST Updated 31 Min Ago


Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer on Friday offered a new plan to Republican lawmakers that would allow the U.S. government to reopen from a shutdown that began Oct. 1.

But Republicans quickly dismissed Schumer’s proposal.

That deal hinges on protecting enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for at least one year in exchange for Democrats dropping their demand that a long-term extension of ACA tax credits be included in a stopgap government funding bill.

“I find Senator Schumer’s demands ridiculous and equivalent to political hostage taking to continue bad policy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said in a post on X. “We should not be made to continue flooding health insurance companies with taxpayer dollars under Obamacare as the price to open up the government,” Graham said. “My no vote will be an unequivocal rejection of Senator Schumer’s very bad idea.”

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/07/government-shutdown-democrats-schumer-trump-aca.html

---

Article updated.

Previous articles/headline -

Published Fri, Nov 7 2025 2:50 PM EST Updated 2 Min Ago


Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer on Friday offered a new plan to Republican lawmakers that would allow the U.S. government to reopen from a shutdown that began Oct. 1.

Schumer's proposal calls for Democrats to agree to pass a so-called clean resolution that would provide short-term funding for government operations.

In exchange, the New York lawmaker said, Republicans would agree to a separate one-year extension of existing enhanced tax credits that are used to reduce the cost of health insurance purchased on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The other leg of the deal calls for the establishment of a bipartisan committee to continue negotiations on long-term reforms to address the issue of health-care affordability.

Democratic leader offers deal to reopen federal government, with 1-year ACA tax credit extension

Published Fri, Nov 7 2025 2:50 PM EST Updated 2 Min Ago


Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer on Friday offered a new plan to Republicans that would allow the U.S. government to reopen after a shutdown that began on Oct. 1.

Schumer's proposal calls for Democrats to agree to pass a so-called clean resolution that would provide short-term funding for government operations.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Original article -

Published Fri, Nov 7 2025 2:50 PM EST


This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[Scrivener7]

1. And there's no reason for maga not to

take the deal, but I wonder if they will.

[COL Mustard]

39. Just remember, this. is all on them...

Republicans control the House, the Senate and of course the White House. I know there is a 60-vote requirement to pass legislation, but they could change that anytime they want and force the CR through. Of corse, in two weeks we'd be right back here.

[Scrivener7]

42. Exactly. They own this government. They own this shutdown.

[cstanleytech]

46. The 60 is actually not a requirement but rather an agreement I believe.

Th reason that the Republicans are antsy about completely throwing it under the bus is because the Republicans want some Democrats to take the fall for people's health insurance rising. Plus they know that shredding the 60 completely will be a grant to the Democrats to do a number of things when the next Democratic President comes into office combined with a Democratic controlled House and Senate.

The Democrats need to not cave though and force the Republicans to find a way out of this mess on their own because the Republicans caused it themselves.

[24601]

60. It's Senate Rule 22 that requires 60 votes to invoke cloture. It also takes 67 votes to change Senate Rules.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm

[cstanleytech]

66. Ah but is the rule a Constitutional requirement or not? If not then they can just override it anytime they want.

[24601]

68. The Constitution does not require it. The Constitution does allow it because houses of Congress are empowered

to make their own rules. Specifically, ART I, Section Five states:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

This is the relevant portion of Senate Rule XXII:

‘‘Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?’’ And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

When 100 Senators have been chosen and sworn, the number to invoke cloture is 60 [3/5] and that's without regard to whether they are present and voting.

Changing the rules, however, takes 2/3 of the Senators present and voting. That number is 67 when every Senator is present and votes.

[cstanleytech]

69. But can they just ignore it?

[24601]

70. Can they ignore it? There isn't a court that would intervene. When Harry Reid ignored Senate Rule 22 and went nuclear,

the end result was Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

The Senate is the only organization within government that requires the majority to negotiate with a minority that has at least 41%.

Senators COULD eliminate it; however, the resulting back and forth with successive Congresses undoing their predecessors actions likely would be very disruptive overall.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. That would make ACA prime topic for Election Day 2026

Republicans won't go for that at all.

[Bev54]

30. Exactly!

They sure as hell don't want that.

[LuvLoogie]

3. Permanent.

He's offering what the GOPs floated?!

He's got his for life, I guess.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. "He's offering what the GOPs floated?!"

The GOP have offered NOTHING but "concepts of a plan", but "Repeal and Replace" is their main goal, or better "Rpeal" period, something that they have harped on for the past 15 years.

[LuvLoogie]

6. Why wouldn't he demand permanent? And get somebody else to write the strongly worded letter.

The ACA is passed out on the floor, and Chuck looks at the cameras.

[Efilroft Sul]

7. Weak sauce from Chuck. Just reinforces the notion he's not the person meant to meet the moment.

[Bluetus]

47. I wonder if his proposal has a lot more conditions

I mean, if all he is asking for is a 1-year extension, after which they can kill it again, why wouldn't the GOP take that deal in a heartbeat?

Let's hope there was some much tougher fine print in Schumer's offer.

At this stage, I'd rather see the GOP try to make it through the Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons explaining why everything remains broken.

And remember that inflation is rising as is unemployment, so the pot is going to be boiling the Republicans real soon.

[Efilroft Sul]

59. My Susan Collins concern is that Chuck doesn't see what you, me, and most everyone else on this thread does.

He should, after Democrats wanted to light him up in spring, but the fact that he low-balled an offer with just a one-year extension on the ACA subsidies (when billionaires get "permanent" tax breaks) doesn't put me at ease. Because, as you said, the GOP should've jumped at such an offer on its face.

After Tuesday's election, my initial offer would've been to fund the extensions with no sunset provision, release the SNAP funds ASAP, and restore LIHEAP resources also ASAP so disadvantaged Americans don't freeze in their homes this winter. And if the Republicans balked, shout from the rooftops that Trump and MAGA want people to die from the cold, die from starvation, and die from not being able to see their doctor.

[Bluetus]

62. 100% agree. So why didn't the Republicals take Schumer's softball deal

if the reports of Schumer's deal are accurate?

I certainly believe that Schumer is capable of making such a weak offer, but if so, the Republicans should have accepted that with about 5 milliseconds of thought. Why didn't they?

I think these reports cannot possibly be accurate.

[Efilroft Sul]

64. Something does seem off.

[Bluetus]

65. Unless the goal is something completely different

Trump has been all over the map on this. He dared the Dems to hold the line, saying he would use the shutdown to do even more devastation to the government and to punish blue states. But then a few days ago he was demanding that Senate Repulicans kill the filibuster to end the shutdown.

Let's assume that Trump really isn't calling the shots. There are many behind the scenes who are probably enjoying seeing government flailing. This surely includes people like Theil, Bannon, Miller and most of the cabinet Secretaries.

So it is entirely possible they they fully intended for this conflict to either result in total capitulation by the Dems very quickly, or a long (like many months) shutdown that essentially kills all the programs the billionaires hate. And they may not be telling Thune,

"OK, we thought the Dems would capitulate quickly as they always have before. We underestimated them. But that's OK. Let's keep this shutdown going at least through the end of the year. It is going to hurt the Dem base more than it hurts us billionaires. And by the way, if this causes a severe recession, that's OK too because that means that billionaires can swoop in any take control of companies at a big discount.. So just keep stalling."

[Efilroft Sul]

67. Or, as I suspect, the Republicans are all in on it, and Thune's just good at looking stupid.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. They updated the article (I always try to update) and the GOP has already rejected it.

[NotHardly]

22. Because he is old and has no spine, he's got his

spineless and lacks creativity and no thought for the rest of us ... where are the young vigorous leaders?

[Deuxcents]

5. I'm not liking this kicking the can down the street..after 34-35 days and we'll be at it again next year

[Lovie777]

9. At this point yes.....

There will always be a fight with them no matter what, GQP do not believe in healthcare at all regarding the less fortunate.

[gab13by13]

10. Now do people see why Schumer should have taken a stand back in March?

When a handful of Democratic Senators passed the CR back in March, Krasnov got everything he wanted, he got his Big Ugly Death Bill passed that gutted our social safety net.

Fast forward to today's CR, the only bargaining chip that Democrats have is Obamacare subsidies, and Chuck wants a temporary deal to fund it.

I guess the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, SNAP, etc. etc. is a done deal, the Big Ugly Death has become the law of the land, much harder to rescind once it is a law.

I year of subsidies for Obamacare, Magats should throw a party, will insurers change their premiums once this is agreed to?

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Okay, how is this going to work?

When does the House have a changing of the guard? Because, there is going to be a Democratic sweep during the mid-terms 11/26. It's not really the Senate that we need to worry about as much as the House. We need a House with a Democratic supermajority to make sure that the Republicans in the future don't screw us over.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. How would a supermajority in the house (but not the senate) benefit Dems? Nt

[Baitball Blogger]

15. By shutting down the House they

Control ACA has turned into bargaining chip. With a super majority Dems, the Republicans lose their leverage.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. A simple majority would do the same thing. Nt

[Bluetus]

48. Right. So if there is a kick-the-can solution ...

it ought to be kicked to February 2027 when there is a good chance we will control the House and the budgeting process.

The absolute worst deal would be to kick it 12 months, meaning that the Republicans could screw us over in the lame duck period after the 2026 elections.

Surely Schumer is smart enough to figure this out. He is, isn't he?

[Baitball Blogger]

49. thank you for pitching in.

Just let us hope he is smart enough to figure out the math.

[LudwigPastorius]

54. "The absolute worst deal would be to kick it 12 months..."

I don't see it that way.

Every single Congressional Republican campaigning for a seat next year will have to stand up before the press and elucidate to a highly-pissed off electorate why they WON'T be extending the ACA subsidies.

They don't have the balls. They know that would screw their chances on Nov. 3 2026, especially after the ass kicking they received this week.

They WANT a deal that makes this go away until after the election.

[Bluetus]

63. The timing is tricky

Killing the subsidy before the election won't really be noticed. The public at large will not pay attention to that until the open enrollment period, that's only a few days before the election. I don't think we can win the mid-terms with that being the primary issue. But I think we can win if we have a proactive platform of plans that attack the fascism and lawlessness of Trump..

So I don't think it is helpful to kick it only to September 2026. That won't help us win, and once the Republicans kill it, it will be very hard to bring it back, especially if we don't control the Senate.

And allowing the GOP to kill it in the lame duck period is also a loser.

The only period that makes sense to me is after the new House is seated in 2027.

====

It is important to understand that this affects 22 million Americans. That is a significant number, but that also means that it just doesn't affect 80% of the voters. A more powerful electoral issue would be to add dental and visual benefits to real Medicare. That is how the Advantage scam works. With Advantage, they save a lot of money on hospitalization simply by denying treatments, and they give some of that back in the form of glasses, hearing aids and dental work. That affects 70 million people directly and another 30 million are close enough to the Medicare age to care about this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. If the expiration date is after the midterms, NO DEAL

If that is what Schumer is proposing, he should lose his leadership position.

[NotHardly]

23. THIS... what Fiendish Thingy said!

[BootinUp]

14. Schumer probably knows best. In terms of

The politics of the senate. Throwing a fit is easy, getting a deal done is not. I’m here until I’m not. lol.

[Miguelito Loveless]

16. NO TEMPORARY EXTENSIONS!!!

A temporary extension helps the GOP in the short term by postponing the pain of skyrocketing premiums until AFTER the midterms.

[orangecrush]

17. Way to keep the momentum going

[Buddyzbuddy]

21. If there's agreement, the separate ACA deal needs to pass first.

[thesquanderer]

24. Confusing article

It says...

Schumer’s proposal calls for Democrats to agree to pass a so-called clean resolution that would provide short-term funding for government operations. In exchange, the New York lawmaker said, Republicans would agree to a separate one-year extension of existing enhanced tax credits that are used to reduce the cost of health insurance purchased on ACA marketplaces.

Okay, so the proposed plan for the short-term funding agreement includes an extension of the existing enhanced ACA tax credits.

But then it says...

Schumer’s offer drops the long-standing Democratic demand that the short-term funding resolution include an extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies, which are due to expire at the end of December.

So then the proposed plan for the short-term funding agreement does NOT include an extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies.

These statements seem directly contradictory, unless there is some subtle distinction between "tax credits" and "subsidies" that I am not aware of.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. It sounds like the offer would be to add the short-term extension to one of the separate appropriations bills

(probably the HHS one) since the point of the C.R. was to give more time to FINALIZE and PASS the actual appropriations bills - whether as singles, "Minibus" combos, or a huge "Omnibus" bill.

[Fil1957]

25. He may have offered the plan knowing full well it would be rejected. This allows Dems to say they tried to reopen the

government, but the Repubs want to keep it shut. Trump is also helping to drive this narrative by doing everything he can to NOT provide snap benefits.

[FalloutShelter]

26. Exactly right.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. That's what it looks like (once the article got updated with some more details)

[peggysue2]

55. This is what I conjured from this proposal

It placates the Democratic 'moderates' who presumably want to open the government regardless of cost while placing a marker--we tried to negotiate, made an offer and it was summarily rejected.

The Republicans and Trump own this shutdown. make them own it entirely. The Democratic Party needs to stop bailing out Republicans from their worst inclinations.

Are people going to get hurt? Yes. That's the whole point. the pain, the cruelty, anything to get their way and to complete the total destruction of our democratic Republic.

It's a matter of hurting now or being destroyed later.

It sucks. All of it sucks. But I firmly believe we need to hold the line to the bitter end because we are on the right side of history and we owe our ancestors, the sacrifices they made for our sake, everything.

Not on our watch!

[Raven123]

27. And this would pass in the House? Fat chance

[aeromanKC]

28. MAGA rejected the clean bill they've been asking for. They don't want to open the government.

As long as the government is shut down, the Epstein files are closed. If the GOP gets another member from Tennessee sworn in after Dec. 2nd to neutralize Grijalva's vote The Epstein files remain closed. MAGA GOP doesn't want the Government re-opened anytime soon.

It's up to the Dems now to message that!! They offered a clean bill.

[70sEraVet]

34. I hadn't thought of that.

I wish I could feel confident that the Democratic candidate might win District 7 in TN (my district). Though that district includes 1/3 of Nashville and all of Clarksville (a lot of blue support), it also contains a LOT of MAGA territory.

[aeromanKC]

35. So you're telling me there's a chance!!

I thought it was a done deal. Let's go Nashville and Clarksville!!!

[70sEraVet]

40. I've attended two No Kings protests in Carksville (about 30 miles from me)

I was amazed at the attendance and the support of drivers!
Clarksville has Fort Campbell AND Austin Peay State University. So, a lot of young people. It is currently the 5th largest city in Tennessee!

[BumRushDaShow]

36. "If the GOP gets another member from Tennessee sworn in after Dec. 2nd to neutralize Grijalva's vote"

There is no "neutralize" if another (R) comes in unless some other (R) or (D) changes their vote.

They need 218 for the discharge petition, they have 217 now and Grijalva would be #218. A simple majority in the House in general is that 218 number (50% of 435 +1), enough to force the vote and enough to pass (assuming the final vote holds).

[aeromanKC]

37. I like your math better than my math!!

But ya, they're working hard to get one of the Yes's to switch.

[Wiz Imp]

41. That seat in Tennessee will NOT neutralize Grijalva's vote.

A discharge position always needs 218 signatures which is a majority of the 435 seats in the House. It doesn't matter how many seats might be open at the time. It always requires 218. Grijalva is #218. The Texas district which will have a runoff next month (It will be 2 Dems in the runoff for Sylvester Turner's old seat) will be #219 if Grijalva still doesn't get sworn in by before that runoff election. Currently there are 213 Democrats sworn in. All have signed the discharge petition. 4 Republicans have also signed to make 217. Grijalva will be #218 unless somebody who already signed changes their mind. The Special Election in Tennessee is meaningless as far as the discharge petition is concerned.

[Deminpenn]

50. Correct

nt

[bronxiteforever]

29. Senator Graham Cracker says 20 billion for Argentina

healthcare for you no!

[Mr. Evil]

33. I think it's long past time for Lindsey to be exposed.

For everything he is and everything he isn't. One thing's for sure, he is useless in the progression of humanity. Let it fly!

[flashman13]

38. I also find Schumer's proposal unacceptable. Absolutely NO on a one year deal.

The tax cut for billionaires has no one year end date. What is good for the uber rich should be good enough for the rest of us. Why would we want to fight this battle again in one year?

Hold the line Democrats.

[Wiz Imp]

43. This was clearly done because he knew the Republicans would reject it.

Many non-MAGA Republicans in the media have been critical of the Democrats saying they should agree to something effectively the same as Schumer's "offer". They have been naive enough to believe the Republicans would actually go along with it. By making the "offer", and having Republicans reject it, Schumer proves that the Republicans do not care about Health Insurance premiums doubling (or more) for millions of Americans - in fact, they want that to happen. In the end, it further strengthens the Democrats' position.

[Deminpenn]

53. Yes

nt

[angrychair]

44. We are getting sold out AGAIN

If the Senate passes that CR the Republicans can pat themselves on the back and they don't have to do anything else. They got what they wanted.

Not to mention that even if it passes Congress that the orange turd monster can just veto it and then we are screwed.

No deal unless they pass the ACA subsidies and it's signed into law before they vote on the CR

[LetMyPeopleVote]

45. I agree with Senator Schiff on this proposal

Link to tweet

[Deminpenn]

51. Schumer/Dems forced Rs to vote against taking "yes" for an answer

When Dems were voting down the House CR, Americans could think Dems were responsible for holding up the works and not "working together" with Rs. But now that Dems have made a proposal that asks very little in return for their votes, Rs have shown their hand by voting it down.

Now it's much clearer and easier to see the Rs are the ones who won't negotiate and don't want to re-open the government.

[louis-t]

52. Lindsey knows there's a good chance Dems will take the House and Senate

next year, then they will continue ACA subsidies. Repugs feel it is their lot in life to punish people.

[Jack Valentino]

56. A 'too reasonable offer', but the GQP WANTS your health insurance costs

to become impossible, so that you will DIE--- and thus NOT VOTE!

It is as simple as that!



(as an old Democrat, I support that offer, to end the shutdown---
but not enough for the GQP as it seems, who refuse to even talk---
too busy beating off to pedophile videos!)

[Rigpa108]

57. There goes that new word again 'affordability'

There goes that new word again 'affordability’. I mean it's so new, what does it even mean? Is it even in the dictionary? /s

[Rhiannon12866]

58. Senate Democrats offer to end shutdown in exchange for 1-year extension of health care tax credits - CBS News

Sen. Chuck Schumer announced on the Senate floor Friday that Democrats are willing to end the government shutdown in exchange for a one-year extension of health care tax credits. - Aired on 11/07/2025.

[travelingthrulife]

61. kicking the can down the road is not a solution.