This is what I've been saying. I wish a lot more people would make the same observation:
What if an intransigent Obama forced a partial government shutdown, the 18th in recent decades? And what people noticed was that things actually seemed to run pretty well with nearly 900,000 "non-essential" federal workers furloughed from Obama's bloated workforce of 2.2 million?
Why should American taxpayers pay for any non-essential workers?
If we can do without nearly 900,000 "non-essential" personnel today with all their costly benefits and accruing pensions, why not tomorrow? And next week? And next year? Which is the smaller government argument that so many conservatives will make in advance.
Of course opinions vary as to what is "essential." They'll do things to annoy us in an effort to ramp up the perceived negative effects, like close all the national parks. Naturally we can't expect the White House to do without its chefs. What are we, barbarians?
