A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report' s authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence. The basic position taken by the report's authors on the criticism leveled against the report is that ["addressing the critics' concern now would be premature", 'the notion of a coherent vision would be inappropriate to a program of the sort at issue', 'giving the report a single focus is less desirable than the critics claim', "the critics' motives are self-serving"]