This is where I, as a Libertarian, would part ways with the author. I don't believe a government solution to the Zombie Apocalypse is sustainable.
While today, a large segment of the tax base could be classified as 'Zombie'. In an actual apocalypse scenario. The undead would go from revenue positive to revenue negative. As the outbreak continued to spread, the government response would find itself deficit spending very quickly.
Currently, our government finances deficit spending by the foreign sales of US Bonds. But, in a global Zombie Pandemic, the market for purchasing US debt would dry up faster than zombie skin.
According to a 2009 Carleton University and University of Ottawa epidemiological analysis, an outbreak of even Living Dead's slow zombies "is likely to lead to the collapse of civilization, unless it is dealt with quickly." Based on their mathematical modelling, the authors concluded that offensive strategies were much more reliable than quarantine strategies, due to various risks that can compromise a quarantine. They also found that developing a cure would merely leave a few humans alive, since this would do little to slow the infection rate.
On a longer time scale, the researchers found that all humans end up turned or dead. This is because the main epidemiological risk of zombies, besides the difficulties of neutralizing them, is that their population just keeps increasing; generations of humans merely "surviving" still have a tendency to feed zombie populations, resulting in gross outnumbering. The researchers explain that their methods of modelling may be applicable to the spread of political views or diseases with dormant infection.