Math Help - Would this be a logical argument?

1. Would this be a logical argument?

I am sorry if this is irrelevant but I am not sure where else to ask

. The latest figures from the Census Bureau show why putting Americans back to work must be Washington’s top priority.
The bureau reported on Tuesday that the number of people living in poverty swelled by 2.6 million between 2009 and 2010 to 46.2 million. That is a shocking 15.1 percent of the population — the highest share since 1993.
The middle class is also hurting. Last year, the income of the typical American household fell 2.3 percent to $49,445 — it’s third consecutive annual decline — capping a lost decade of stagnating earnings. Median household income is$3,800 a year less than its peak in 1999.
These numbers should jolt Washington into addressing the real economic crisis. The deficit must be addressed over time. But right now the problem is too few jobs, not too much government spending. Slashing such spending now will only put more people out of work and drive more families below the poverty line.

Would this be an argument?
This is how I would standardize it.

(1) The number of people in poverty has increased.
(2) The income of the typical American has dropped for the third consecutive year.
(3)Median household income has declined.
[4] Without jobs people do not have incomes.
Therefore
(5) Washington should focus on putting Americans back to work.

2. Re: Would this be a logical argument?

The biggest problem with this argument is the word "should." First, one needs some moral axioms saying that poverty is bad. Even then, people may assign different priorities to positive things: e.g., some may value non-intrusive government more than an increase in median income. Finally, there may be various ways to reach higher income and lower unemployment, some of which may only work in the short run.