"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."

Should governments pay more attention to today's immediate problems than the future's anticipated problems? My point is that both of the two issues should be concerned seriously, as discussed below.
I concede that most of the world governments tend to focus on the immediate problems to woo the public. Admittedly, solving the immediate crises such as lowering the tax, increasing employments and investment in education and so forth, does not only mitigate the social press but also leave a nice impression to civil people. After all, the public cannot trust such government deficient in abilities to improve their living standards.
While we must also take account to anticipated problems for lacking of consideration of those would possibly cause unpredictable disaster in the future. One apt illustration of this point involves the development of industrial countries in the past 100 years, that governments made them in solving the immediate problems say unemployment by encouraging more factories without any idea of the predicted aftermath including environmental pollution and excessive production that reverse threaten the human's lives. Take the Itai-itai disease for instance, it happened in Japan in 1962 which was caused by people's unconscious ingesting of a great quantity of cadmium from the polluted rice that irrigated by the water excreted by the vicinity factory, and killed hundreds of lives.
Further more, governments should consider the possible effect of the action of today. Wrong action would also give rise to unpleasant result rather than solving the anticipated problems. Few would dispute that the Iraq war waged by Bush administration in 2003 has solved the problems in this country. On the contrary, these problems are aggravated characterized by ceaseless death of folks and solders. At same time the U.S government have expended hundreds of billions of dollars after the war (if we agree so) which could have made a large progress to approach the immediate problems of economic slacking haunting nowadays' Americans.

In sum, there is no priority between solving the immediate problems and anticipated problems. Governments' well solutions of immediate problems will doubtlessly win the confident of national people, while further actions to the upcoming problems would also affect the society. Moreover, discreet assessments and decent methods should also be well considered by these politicians.

开头还是写简单了点，个人觉得先写一下大家对这个问题的看法，然后表明自己的观点这样比较自然点。My point 好像表达不恰当，改成The point of my view可能会好点吧。
第二段，woo用在这不合适吧，civil people表达也不地道直接写成citizen就可以。the public cannot trust such government deficient in abilities to improve their living standards.
此句应该是定义从句但没看到从句的主谓语，在government 加who is .
第三段，开头这句话有点混乱，作者是想用 take ..into account 这个短语吗？好像作者是按自己的中文意思来写句子，而不是习惯的表到方式。后面感觉还可以，论证也支持了你的立场。
第四段写的还不错，例子也支持了作者的position，句法也还可以。
结尾段，confident 是形容词吧，assessments 不可数名词吧。
总的来说，你的作文还可以，观点明确，论证也到位，也注意用了些长句。但好像作者有刻意用一些高级词汇的嫌疑，个人感觉有些用词不是很恰当。偶10G还没开始写作文，还是佩服楼主第一次就可以写的这么好。以上是个人拙见，欢迎以后偶写作时大家来使劲拍。。。

气死我了