United States Capitol (Screen Capture)

I've already explained why I do not have a dog in the current stop fight in Washington. In simple terms, Trump does not fight to reduce the size of the government. Instead, he wants more money for a wall and does not even offer some offsets general burden of government of expansion.

That being said, I'm bored when advocates of the status quo act as if the economy is in danger simply because a small handful of bureaucracies and non-core departments are temporarily shut down.

In addition to the interview with Fox Business, I've also pontificated on the same subject for Cheddar, which is a new network covering financial and economic issues.

So, why do TV stations cover this story?

Some people think that partial shutdown really matters. Here are some excerpts from a report by United States today:

"Economists start to take into account the potential damage associated with the current federal closure … if the stalemate lasted until the end of January or beyond, it could have negative consequences by slowing the productivity of federal workers." , by temporarily stopping their paychecks … The biggest damage could be inflicted consumer and business confidence that has already been shaken by the recent liquidation of the stock markets. … Economist Jesse Edgerton of JPMorgan Chase predicts that it could reduce growth by half a percentage point. That's about how much the partial 16-day government cut reduced growth at the end of 2013. "


The people who dialed numbers on the alleged damage from the 2013 shutdown are essentially the same people who said sequestration would hurt growth. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

You use a shabby Keynesian model (This assumes that government spending is good for the economy) and you get Keynesian results, which are absurdly predictable.

L & # 39; writing for the American spectator, Christopher Buskirk has a more sober perspective:

"The DC media complex is not satisfied with the partial closure of the federal government. The closure of the government hangs in the new year, they tell us! … Yet, despite all the out-of-the-box comments from the Beltway media, the federal government can not even close properly. Only about 25% of the federal government is affected. The army is fully funded and in service, as is social security and health insurance. US postal services continue to distribute unwanted flyers and coupons, the TSA is fully funded and congratulates people, and the Veterans Administration continues to provide substandard care to the standards of our veterans. … When I open the tap, the water is still flowing. When I drive to the store, streetlights are always on. In fact, I met a police officer en route for a coffee this morning, so that our neighborhood remains safe. While I miss it? Not much, it turns out. And almost no one. … What we learned from the closure is that … the federal government is essentially non-essential. "


That's one of the reasons I'm not worried about the closure (at least of those that occur because someone is fighting for a good policy). If we kept parts of government closed for a long time, maybe people notice that nothing bad has happened and then conclude that it would be a good idea never to let these departments and agencies reopen.

In any case, tax policy should aim at reducing the federal government and not at stopping a temporary partial stoppage (which does not even save money, because bureaucrats end up receiving a full pay during the days when they did not stay in their offices).

Let's close with a little bit of humor I received it in my inbox.

You can see other examples of satire stopping by by clicking here.

P.S. As I noted in my interview, the current fragility of the financial markets must be questioned. Trump's protectionism and the hangover of Keynesian Monetary Policy.

Daniel J. Mitchell is one of the best experts in tax reform and tax policy focused on the supply and is president of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Mitchell is a strong advocate for a flat tax and international tax competition.