Rhetorical Analysis

Michelle Kuecks
COMP 2000
Rhetorical Analysis – First Analysis
February 5, 2009

In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Alan Reynolds takes aim at the proposed stimulus package: “Spending $214.5 billion to create or save 330,400 government jobs implies that taxpayers are being asked to spend $646,214 per job” (January, 2009). He then asks a rhetorical question: “Does that make sense?” His approach is pretty much guaranteed to gather a sympathetic audience because the economy has effected just about everyone. America is drowning in a sea of workers who have lost their jobs, are in foreclosure, and have no health insurance. But Reynolds’ approach avoids raw emotions. He gets right down to the business of dollars - and sense, or lack thereof. His tactic is to take a complicated issue and make it simple: the government is about to throw billions of dollars out the window. Those who so desperately need immediate help finding work are about to suffer the ultimate insult: the government will fund the stimulus package with billions of dollars, and even though money should be spent wisely on creation of new jobs, billions of dollars are about to be thrown out the window.

Even though Reynolds’ writing style lacks feeling, he is able to play on one’s emotions. He begins by grabbing hold of the reader by making an appalling analogy sure to get a rise out of anyone: it will cost over six-hundred thousand dollars to fund each job. From there, he provides a series of unemployment percentages in an attempt to solidify his position: the unemployment problem is huge, especially in certain industries. Finally, in order to fully appreciate the hypocrisy of this legislation, Reynolds calculates the percentage of billions of dollars that do not go towards job creation. The reader cannot resist having a reaction to spending billions of dollars irresponsibly. While the issue that peaks one’s attention is shameful spending, his real complaint is where the money will not go.

Current unemployment statistics cited by Reynolds paint a pretty dismal picture in our country today…but the stimulus package is even uglier. To illustrate this point, he provides a series of calculations both in percentages and dollar amounts that were relied on by the Obama administration. Reynolds complains that the figures are stale but nevertheless he appears to accept the computations as true. There is little temptation to disagree with the figures that are used because there is little explanation, and even if there was, the reader is too wrapped up in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on each job. But this is not his strongest point. Reynolds accomplishes his goal by highlighting what the bill does not do. He presents percentages of billions of dollars that are not spent on job creation. He demonstrates his point well and leaves the reader thoroughly convinced that Congress is crazy.

Educating the public about the absurd amount of spending by the government for each job is the author’s goal. But no matter how shocking Reynolds’ figures are, the details are still sparse. Put another way, does anyone really know what is in the stimulus package? Although his “per job” or “each job” spending figures are upsetting Reynolds takes the inquiry beyond the cost. He finds fault in legislation that ignores industries that are suffering the most where job loss is the greatest. To him a more logical approach would be to fix what is broken, put taxpayer dollars where they are truly needed, and avoid overfunding stable industries.

Reynolds finds fault in providing funding to state and local government. He considers these sectors to have secure employment. While this may be true it would come as no surprise to learn that municipalities and state governments are also severely under-budgeted. But, this is overlooked by Reynolds. According to Murphy, local and state governments, still have many open jobs despite the current dismal state of the economy. His suggestion is to create more jobs in manufacturing and construction, an area plagued with the highest unemployment rates. However, on this point, Murphy loses his balance. With great bravado, he glosses over the bigger picture: a job is a job. Getting back to work is the goal, not industry selection. Spending money responsibly is a point he makes very well. But, perhaps this is not the time to criticize what types of jobs are offered but address taking positive steps to solve the problem – and do it now.

Another shortcoming with Murphy’s argument is that he advocates for funding industries where there simply is no demand. He does nothing to defend his position on funding the manufacturing and construction industries. Instead, he places all of his emphasis on the unemployment figures. By doing so, he neglects to address supply and demand. Another way of looking at it is supporting a sinking ship. The money may buy a few jobs in construction but the reality is that no one can afford to buy what the workers will build. Similarly, it is impractical to increase manufacturing jobs in an economy that has no money to buy what they assemble.

One more issue is worthy of mention. Reynolds’s method is limited to a quantitative analysis. His query is reduced to numerical expression. This is one way of solving a very complex and difficult problem. But the solutions are as pragmatic as they are varying. It would be much easier to get people back to work quickly if the country was not in a recession. While Reynolds provides a plethora of tale-telling statistics, at the end of the day he is just crunching numbers. The numbers reflect only part of the problem, and ignore the cost to humanity. By confining his argument to calculations disconnects himself from the very people he allegedly is concerned. He avoids the reality that people are suffering due to the dismal state of the economy. He is out of touch with the increased demand on social services for food stamps, housing, and health insurance. This is all part of helping people get back on their feet financially. His attitude appears harsh and unattached. The more he marries the numbers in the stimulus package the more uncaring he seems.

As a final point, one thing that is suspicious about Reynolds’ view is that he never really rejects the idea of a stimulus package as a whole. He limits his criticism quite succinctly to the dollar amount being spent, the types of jobs it will create, and amount spent on social services. But, he really never trashes the overall proposition. Herein lays a weakness. It is quite possible that there is more merit to no package at all. After all, the country is in a serious recession, the federal government is operating at a record high deficit, and employment is only one problem. There are social issues that are equally, if not more, important. At the end of the day it is possible that Americans are effectively demonstrating what the right thing is to do by cutting back on spending. Everyone is on a budget. The days of spending more than one has are over. Initially it was a struggle to cut back but people are doing it. Perhaps the government should too.

References

Reynolds, A. (2009, January 28). $646,214 Per Government Job. Spending where unemployment is already low. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310498020322323.html