Louise Radnofsky had a piece early Friday morning—before the Senate vote on a bill that would keep the Federal government running for another month—outlining the costs of a shutdown, based on the Progressive-Democrats’ 2013 shutdown. Over those roughly two weeks of relative inactivity, the costs were quite trivial.
Those trivial costs are part of why the Progressive-Democrats are so anxious to have the shutdown this time around, too—they know there’ll be small practical impact while having large publicity impact.
Frankly, I hope Trump stands firm, and with the government shut down that it stays shut down for far more than a couple of weeks—let everyone see how little Big Government is needed and how well a skeleton government (at least compared to the present morbidly obese government) functions. After all, to take one example from that 2013 shutdown, then-EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy admitted that more than 90% of her EPA personnel were non-essential, and she furloughed them for the duration. Now, 90% probably overstates the long-term case (assuming we actually need an EPA, but that’s a separate discussion), but the EPA’s current budget request, which reflects a 47% reduction in EPA employees, is a good place to start.