Critique of Considering Cutting Costs

Navarette claims that the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal should be commended for not wanting to accept his state’s $98 million share of the $787 billion national stimulus bill. Jindal understands that accepting the money will require a change in state laws dealing with unemployment and a subsequent larger cost to the state in the long run. Navarette is critical of Californian Governor Schwarzenegger who would be jump on the opportunity to receive Louisiana’s share as well as his one state’s portion of the national bail out.

Going into detail about California’s debt problem, Navarette draws evidence for his argument from the fact that although things are bad in the Golden Gate State, they could be worse. Yes there is a $42 billion debt, but at the same time tourists and businesses continue to pour dollars into the state.

His audience is Californians for the most part, yet he also draws national interest by relating the issue in California to the national budget crisis.

Navarette’s purpose and argument in this editorial are not clear, and he seems to jump from talking about despising taxes to endorsing them. He applauds Governor Jindal for refusing the national stimulus package, but gives no clear evidence or logic explaining why this is a laudable move. As for the California fiscal matter, Navarette makes it clear that he is unhappy about the $12 billion in new taxes, yet criticizes the Republicans who are stubborn to tax increase. His argument is ambiguous and the lack of conclusive evidence and logic keep his commentary from being effective.

From Navarrette: Consider costs in the long run