Radical Term Limits - a simple solution

I interviewed Frances Moore Lappe tonight - an inspiring woman who, forty years ago, wrote "Diet For A Small Planet."  She's been advocating for a more sustainable food system, and a better, more sustainable world, ever since.  Her newest book is "Ecomind- Changing the Way We Think To Create the World We Want."

Hunger, poverty, climate change, war - it all boils down, she says, to the need for a "living democracy."  That means a system that actually is for the people and by the people.  And the way to achieve that, she says, is to get the money out of politics.

I've been thinking much the same thing, and my idea is simple:  Radical Term Limits.  Politics was never meant to be a career.  It was a public service.  Let's go back to that concept.  Here's how:  no one, absolutely no one, can hold political office for more than two terms at any level.  Two terms at a local office, two terms at a state level, two terms at a federal level.  Thank you very much for your service. Go home.  Someone else has to step up.  No multiple offices at any level. 

This has to be accompanied by strict transparency requirements for all donations, disclosure of all interests in any businesses, ironclad restrictions on lobbyists.  But radical term limits is the key.

We'd have to have a lot more people involved in government.  That means we'd better educate our population, because a lot of them are going to have to serve.  No one would be in office long and that would make buying politicians a poor investment.  No political insiders - the turnover is too great.

Job security wouldn't be a worry - there wouldn't be any.  Instead of serving their own wallets and career aspirations, politicians would represent the voters who elected them.  Otherwise, one term only.  And the two term limit would ensure that there would be a sense of urgency to accomplish something.

Radical term limits.  Spread the word.

New York Loves Love

Marriage Equality legislation passed the New York legislature last night - and Governor Cuomo signed the bill with a flourish shortly before midnight. Bam. We have a new law.

There's no question for me that this is cause for celebration. There was an entire group of people who were not allowed to make the same legal commitment to each other that other New Yorkers can because of their sexual orientation. That's discrimination. And it's so ironic that while the gay population is desperately fighting for the right to make those vows, the straight population is divorcing in record numbers.

I predict good things for the economy (weddings are BIG business!), a lot of VERY happy people and, naturally, a lot of challenges to the new law.

But what struck me most was the contrast between two Republicans. One grandstanded, speechified and insisted on changes to the bill that ensured religious protections. He went so far as to ask Twitter readers which way he should vote. The answer was an overwhelming "yes!" After getting the changes he wanted, his vote was "No."

It was a second, quiet, more contemplative Republican who has always been a supporter of civil unions, but couldn't support gay marriage who found himself in the pivotal role. At the eleventh hour, he said that with the changes in place, he couldn't in good conscience vote against equal marriage rights. And his vote, no doubt one that will anger some voters, made the difference.

Hats off to that rarest of animals - a legislator who votes his conscience, not what will get him re-elected. May he serve for as long as he wishes and may his colleagues learn something from him.

Paterson Bucks the White House

New York has always been larger than life - now it's becoming downright surreal. While the Governator tries to toss every program he can find overboard to keep California from sinking below the economic waves, New York's governor has somehow managed to survive one political misstep after another.

Don't get me wrong - he hasn't come through it all unscathed - New Yorkers are withering in their assessment of his job performance. But he's still in office - and he's decided he can get elected again even if the White House wants him out.

If you haven't heard, President Obama, who is visiting New York today to continue his PR for health care reform blitz, sent word to Governor David Paterson that he doesn't want him to run again. It's a political move, an effort to make sure the Democratic party remains in control of the state in the next election.

Why not Paterson? Well, let me count the problems. 1. He played coy with the hopefuls who lined up to replace Hilary Clinton when she left the Senate. There was a definite echo of nyah nyah nyah coming from the Governor's mansion. 2. He was downright rude to Caroline Kennedy, an Obama buddy and an apparently blameless individual who just wanted to get into politics. Was she the best person for the job? I couldn't say - she didn't appear to be a good shmoozer, but maybe that's a good thing. 3. He was told that the one person the White House DIDN'T want in the Senate was Kirstin Gillibrand - she was seen as a weak candidate and one likely to get ousted in the next election. He appointed Gillibrand. 4. He totally lost control of the legislature and ended up sitting on his hands for a month while the Senate refused to work. 5. Why are his poll numbers down? Paterson blamed racism.

All in all, he's a liability for the party. And he's clearly not loyal to the president. In politics, loyalty is everything. Paterson's loyalty is to the New York Democratic machine. He does what it wants, and has from the start. Things have been running well for the machine since Hilary Clinton left - she was, bless her, an irritant. She didn't take marching orders nor did she have to. I didn't appreciate her til she was gone.

So Paterson says he can do it on his own. It promises to be an interesting match - the governor versus the president.

Meanwhile, Paterson finally got around to endorsing NYC Controller Bill Thompson in his race to oust NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bet that's making Bill feel great.