Tattoos have served as rites of passage. The symbolism and impact of tattoos varies in different places and cultures. Today, people choose to be tattooed for cosmetic, sentimental/memorial,religious, and magical reasons, and to symbolize their belonging to or identification with particular groups. This elaborate tatoo was seen on Oahu’s North Shore. The North Shore of Oahu, one of the Hawaiian Islands is home to the world’s biggest, fastest, and most powerful waves and serves as a Mecca for surfers worldwide. In the North Shore pipeline waves are what most thrill seekers, both in and out of the water, look for.
Dealing with my insurance woes made me think a lot about elected officials in this country. One thing my dad always said was you don’t have a right too complain unless you have a solution.
The problem with insurance in Florida isn’t really even about insurance and it isn’t about who has a good insurance agent. If you have an independent agent they can all go to the same providers. The problem is the list of providers is diminishing by the day.
In recent years, obtaining homeowner’s insurance in Florida has become increasingly difficult due to a variety of factors. One of the main reasons for this is the state’s vulnerability to natural disasters, particularly hurricanes. This has led to an increase in insurance claims and payouts, which has in turn driven up the cost of insurance premiums.
Another factor contributing to the instability of the Florida homeowner’s insurance market is the state’s unique legal environment. In Florida, it is relatively easy for homeowners to file insurance claims and for attorneys to file lawsuits on their behalf. This has led to a surge in litigation against insurance companies, which has further increased the cost of insurance premiums.
In response to these challenges, many insurance companies have either stopped offering homeowner’s insurance in Florida altogether or have significantly reduced their coverage and raised their prices. As a result, some homeowners are finding it difficult to obtain affordable insurance coverage.
One would think that the answer is with our elected officials but …. The governor’s committee and the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC raked in $3.9 million from the insurance industry since its formation in 2018, according to a report released by Hedge Clippers, a campaign organized by the Center for Popular Democracy, “including more than $150,000 in one day.
It seems to me that getting elected into office in the US is no longer about who has good ideas but rather who has more money. The solution seems simple. Why not have government allocate funds for every time of election from local to national. Each candidate would get a certain amount of money and that is all they would get. The playing field would be fair and you would have to run on your principals of what you stand for instead of how much money you have.
The idea of providing public funding for political campaigns in the United States has been debated for many years. I fully believe that public funding could help level the playing field and reduce the influence of money in politics.
One reason why not every candidate who wants to run for office in the US receives public funding is that the current system is based on voluntary contributions from taxpayers. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) offers a voluntary program for presidential candidates, which provides matching funds for small contributions from individual donors. However, not all candidates choose to participate in the program, and there is no comparable program at the state or local level. WHY NOT?
Some would argue that it would be difficult to determine how much money each candidate should receive. Factors such as the size of the candidate’s district, the level of competition in the race, should supply enough information to come up with realistic amounts.
Some politicians and political groups may resist the idea of public funding for campaigns because they believe it would not be in their best interests because money talks and that is actually part of the problem.
Several countries use public funding for elections, either partially or fully but unfortunately there is still bias.
Germany: Political parties receive public funding based on their performance in the previous election. So the person who did better before gets more capital. Not OK.
France: Political parties receive public funding for their campaigns, based on the number of votes they received in the previous election. Again Not OK.
Canada: Federal political parties receive public funding based on the number of votes they received in the previous election. Not OK.
Israel: Political parties receive public funding based on the number of seats they hold in the Knesset (parliament). Again Not OK
Some countries do try but they don’t seem to go far enough. I simply don’t understand why we can’t simply have a system based on ideas and not on DOLLARS.
Maybe I am simplifying a complex issue but it seems so obvious that if everyone had the same money to play with and no additional money was allowed that our entire election process would be based on ideas and who has the best ones instead of Super Pacts and Money.
