Options in Addressing Problems: Deal with It or Solve It

Early in addressing any problem, the most important decision is determining the objective: do you want to solve the problem or simply deal with its symptoms?

Solving a problem takes time because it requires identifying its root causes. Answering why the problem exists often reveals multiple contributing factors that must be addressed before a lasting solution can be achieved. In a nation that increasingly demands immediate results—especially during election season—the pressure to pursue quick fixes is significant.

Dealing with a problem is usually much faster. By directing additional money or resources at the visible symptoms, policymakers may temporarily reduce the problem's impact. From the taxpayer's perspective, however, this approach often allows the underlying problem to persist, requiring additional spending year after year.

How would you expect an Army Staff Sergeant to respond if 2 percent of the soldiers in his squad failed to qualify on the firing range using the standard ammunition load, while another 24 percent passed by only one or two shots?

Knowing these soldiers could soon deploy into combat, a responsible noncommissioned officer would not simply issue them more ammunition. Instead, he would determine why they were struggling and then train them to become more accurate and confident marksmen.

Compare his leadership to Congress’s response to a current issue involving military families.

Approximately 2 percent of young service members receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to help feed their families. In addition, roughly 24 percent of junior service members experience some level of food insecurity.

Multiple Congressional proposals to deal with this problem, the first in 2022 and the second in 2025, was legislation that would exclude a service member's tax-free housing allowance from the income calculation used to determine SNAP eligibility.

Rather than addressing the underlying root causes why some military families experience food insecurity, the proposal focused on simply expanding eligibility for assistance.

The diverse responses expose the differences of leadership philosophy.

One approach manages the consequences of a problem by committing additional resources to it. The other seeks to eliminate the problem by identifying and correcting its causes.

The first may provide immediate relief, but the second offers the possibility of lasting improvement.

Whether in government, business, or the military, leaders must decide whether their responsibility is to deal with problems—or to solve them.

© 2026 MyAmericanHome.CO All rights reserved