Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
The government, financially supported and politically legitimized by the citizens through democratic elections, are responsible for well-being of the public and solving the dilemmas faced by the society. Regarding the dichotomy of choosing between the immediate versus imminent problems, in my opinion, the central government should focus on long term issues while the local or state government should direct their attention to immediate issues. Of course, both central and local government should work alongside as they are closely and intricately related and to maximise the efficiency. Dividing the tasks also contributes in augmenting the productiveness of the effort and aids in narrowing down the focal problem at hand.
Local government are generally more adept in knowledge about the issues in their own community. Since they are elected by the regional public, they have deeper understanding of the local issues and could, potentially, provide more effective solution than that of central government. To further illustrate my point, consider the example of Kyoto earthquake in Japan that occured in 2016. The regional government engaged in providing immediate food and medicinal resources and locating neighboring places for refugees. They were quite effective in providing emergency relief to the victims, the edge they had over centre by knowing local tendencies and susceptible landmarks where people might need most help. Likewise, the citizens, too, relied on local government to help them in resisting the spread of infections and epidemics while simultaneously disinfecting the area. Thus, it is potent that local government should address immediate local problems.
On the other hand, the central government looked upon other states and allies to provide financial aid and resources and assigned military to support those in need of rescue. Furthermore, they employed medicinal practitioners to look into the outbreak of viral infections and epidemics due to flood and long term effect of radiations that might torment the citizens in near future. Additionally, engineers were assigned to improve the design of buildings and bolster dams and high rise towers so as to minimise the damage to the city if such natural disasters were to occur again. Therefore, it is advisory for the central government to attend to more persisting issues.
However, not every issue is as clear cut as above problem. For a number of cases, both state and federal government have to work alongside to eliminate the issue. The local government have to ask for resources from the central while the central have to consult local government for further information about the regional area to get an accurate scale of the difficulty. More specifically, both the government have to comply to each other to resolve the situation.
To infer, as majority of the immediate problems are local and confined to a region, it is beneficial for local or state government to address the issue since they have finer information on their own community, whereas, the central government should focus on persistent issues while working together to address problems of different natures.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | Himanshu Sharma | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | PFF TAHSAN | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | tg763622253 | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | sudesh tiwari | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 494, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...s and bolster dams and high rise towers so as to minimise the damage to the city if such...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, likewise, look, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, while, as to, of course, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2683.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 492.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45325203252 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88378679643 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50406504065 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 852.3 704.065955056 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8917862863 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.15 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85 5.21951772744 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191783837123 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0578210974431 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511340355507 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121842725497 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0677268383522 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.63 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.