The speaker asserts that governments should focus more on solving the immediate problem of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. I fundamentally agree with the speaker, after all, the failure to solve the immediate problem efficiently will lead the fierce contradiction and bring the adverse consequence. Whereas people should also take a note of the fact that the anticipated problem will transform to the immediate problem if people leave them aside.
  The immediate problem means it has exerted a big influence to the whole society. If the government fail to take a quick action to solve, the range of jeopardize will expand and the degree will deepen. During the economical crisis, a huge amount of people lost their job and have to live a life rely on the living allowance from the government. The continuous slide of the economy incites the suspicious from the public about the capacity of the government. With the time stretch, the public will finally lose their patient to the government which evolves into the confrontation between the populace and government. Hence the immediate problem causes the lethal outcome if the government unable to manage it.
  On the order hand is the potential crisis of the anticipated problem. Such problem is the initial state of the immediate problem. If the government fails to pay attention to the jeopardy from such problem, the future work will surely embrace the measurement of dealing with such problems. One apt illustration to this point involved in the environment problem. Imagine the government takes no solution to prevent the damage of the pollution, the water, the food and the air we breathe every day may turn to be the poison to our body. Under such situation, people may have to take the antidote every honor and wear the gas mask avoiding exhale the poisonous gas. Until that time the government decides to take action, it’s hard to assess duration of the recovery. In order to impede such thing occur in the near future, most nation's government is engaged in protecting the environment.
  As a commen saying goes we should do the emergency thing at first and then do the important thing as a sequence to arrange our time which may seem have some merits in solving the society problem. But for a government the two problems should take a measurement at the same time. If the government only exerts all strength in solving the immediate problem, naturally authorities will sink into a vicious circle. The end treatment which mean the government take action only when the problem outburst cannot be thought a good solution. On the contrary, the effective solution should be considered as a precautious administration. However, the government is lake the ability to change the present situation, only in the future affair.
  In the final analysis, the speaker only take note of the consequence in the failure solving of the immediate problems but fail to realize the damage of the anticipated problem. Government should strike a balance in solving such problems, and take a shift from solve to prevent.