Biden's age was, undoubtedly, a factor in the election, but Dems shouldn't deceive themselves. Even in his demented state, Biden or Harris would likely still be in the WH , but for runaway inflation, spurred by $6 trillion dollars in needless spending, and the open border.
Purposely importing, 10 million unplanned, new arrivals with no additional shelter, healthcare or education professionals, will go down, as one of the worst policy blunders, in all of US history. The nonexistent border, was bookended by perpetual Dem claims, the river of humanity could not be slowed without,"comprehensive immigration reform". It took Trump, all of 14 days, to close the spigot, once he entered the WH.
An age limit would not necessary, if elected leaders cared more about their constituents, then themselves. Nepotism magnifies their arrogance and self-absorption. Many elected officials provide jobs for a plethora of family members and friends. Retirement at a normal retirement age, with a generous pension and lifetime healthcare, would be easier to swallow, if it did not render a half dozen relatives and hangers on, unemployed, with few, future prospects. End the nepotism, and over the hill Congressional members, will make better retirement decisions.
Yes there should be an age limit. I would say 80 years old cut off. Regarding other comment, I agree that the party could act. For example where would most candidates be if they get no super PAC funding? The DNC controls the purse strings if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps the Party could step into the breach with a prohibition on carrying the label or running in the primary. Lawsuit here too but perhaps not as heavy of lift since it is a private organization. Until then it is figuring out how to get the car keys away from Grandpa or in Biden's case, the football. Worse with politicians because of all giant egos.
Excellent snapshot of the gerontocracy that has become the U.S. Congress. While the Framers never set age or term limits for Congress, it would seem obvious by their own examples of service to country that they never intended elective public office to become a vocation, a career decision. Most returned to their farms, their law offices or other endeavors after serving
And, like most state legislatures still today, Congress convened for calendar-defined and limited sessions.
So, do we really want to trigger a heated national debate over the relative question of how old is too old? President Biden's defenders were quick to point to officeholders and relatives alike cognitively sharp into their 90s. My own father and the late Sen. Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia, for whom I worked at his newspapers, were two more. Joe Biden, at 81 years of age, was not, and many of those who argued otherwise knew better, or should have.
So limits are in order, but they will be both more fair and constitutionally defensible if imposed upon lengths of terms rather than age.
Past suggestions for congressional term limits have centered on 12 years -- six terms max for House, two terms for Senate.
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. And no more perks go with them.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor and privilege, NOT a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies.
Part of the problem is numbers of terms being served. Wouldn’t term limits be an answer to this problem? It would also help break up the power trips and wealth accumulation these people get by being elected term after term. It would also eliminate some of the corruption that goes on in Washington.
It especially doesn't help Democrats that polling shows the Rs are the party of younger and more ethnically diverse voters. Not a majority with blacks (largely due to single females) but growing, and nearing parity with Hispanics. Younger voters disproportionately approve of Trump's tariff policies. And last I looked, the youngest member of the House was in the GOP.
Yeah, it's sad about all the deaths and, still, the reliance on other elderly to man the ramparts of Congress. But, it's interesting that, now, you are concerned about the increase in spending over the next 10 years. Where were you when Democrats passed the ridiculously named Inflation Reduction Act and the Build Back Better deal? Huh?
The democrats will never be the party of youth unless they actively recruit young candidates and actively push out the ones who clearly are not able to represent their constituents, The party management needs to adopt this policy explicitly. Excellent post.
This should probably be approached through some sort of testing to have approval to run. Not age. Age is too hard to fight. Maybe have a team of one Left, one liberal, one moderate, one Republican, and one far-right watch the testing? Same doctor for everyone.
It's not really age. I am not sure how you get at cognitive decline. Whatever you think about Bernie and Trump, they are certainly vigorous. Both of them are working on trying to pass the baton. Both AOC and JD are Millennials. Hard to do for an ego driven politician and I compliment both.
I recognize the pros and cons of enacting additional laws (or Constitutional amendments) to limit whom the voters can vote for (although I have frequently complained about the current de-facto system in which the extremist activists in each major party limit voters' choices).
But one change that I think should be a no-brainer is to limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices to 18 years, with the terms staggered such that one expires every two years (2 years X 9 Justices = 18 years). That both (a) gives each Justice a substantial term, (b) gives each President the opportunity to appoint two new Justices, and (3) provides a reasonable limit on the age that a serving Justice can reach (assuming that a future President and Senate are competent to add 18 years to the age of any potential Supreme Court nominee).
It's not just members of Congress who have an aging problem. Look at the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a sad example of someone who should have left but didn't. The is photo at the link is shocking; she's at the White House with President Obama. One wonders if he was trying to persuade her to retire. https://eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ruth-Bader-Ginsberg-Barack-Obama.jpg
Biden's age was, undoubtedly, a factor in the election, but Dems shouldn't deceive themselves. Even in his demented state, Biden or Harris would likely still be in the WH , but for runaway inflation, spurred by $6 trillion dollars in needless spending, and the open border.
Purposely importing, 10 million unplanned, new arrivals with no additional shelter, healthcare or education professionals, will go down, as one of the worst policy blunders, in all of US history. The nonexistent border, was bookended by perpetual Dem claims, the river of humanity could not be slowed without,"comprehensive immigration reform". It took Trump, all of 14 days, to close the spigot, once he entered the WH.
An age limit would not necessary, if elected leaders cared more about their constituents, then themselves. Nepotism magnifies their arrogance and self-absorption. Many elected officials provide jobs for a plethora of family members and friends. Retirement at a normal retirement age, with a generous pension and lifetime healthcare, would be easier to swallow, if it did not render a half dozen relatives and hangers on, unemployed, with few, future prospects. End the nepotism, and over the hill Congressional members, will make better retirement decisions.
You are being disingenuous. But, I suspect it's on purpose.
Yes there should be an age limit. I would say 80 years old cut off. Regarding other comment, I agree that the party could act. For example where would most candidates be if they get no super PAC funding? The DNC controls the purse strings if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps the Party could step into the breach with a prohibition on carrying the label or running in the primary. Lawsuit here too but perhaps not as heavy of lift since it is a private organization. Until then it is figuring out how to get the car keys away from Grandpa or in Biden's case, the football. Worse with politicians because of all giant egos.
Excellent snapshot of the gerontocracy that has become the U.S. Congress. While the Framers never set age or term limits for Congress, it would seem obvious by their own examples of service to country that they never intended elective public office to become a vocation, a career decision. Most returned to their farms, their law offices or other endeavors after serving
And, like most state legislatures still today, Congress convened for calendar-defined and limited sessions.
So, do we really want to trigger a heated national debate over the relative question of how old is too old? President Biden's defenders were quick to point to officeholders and relatives alike cognitively sharp into their 90s. My own father and the late Sen. Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia, for whom I worked at his newspapers, were two more. Joe Biden, at 81 years of age, was not, and many of those who argued otherwise knew better, or should have.
So limits are in order, but they will be both more fair and constitutionally defensible if imposed upon lengths of terms rather than age.
Past suggestions for congressional term limits have centered on 12 years -- six terms max for House, two terms for Senate.
Let's pick up the discussion there.
ok, more discussion:
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. And no more perks go with them.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor and privilege, NOT a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies.
Part of the problem is numbers of terms being served. Wouldn’t term limits be an answer to this problem? It would also help break up the power trips and wealth accumulation these people get by being elected term after term. It would also eliminate some of the corruption that goes on in Washington.
It especially doesn't help Democrats that polling shows the Rs are the party of younger and more ethnically diverse voters. Not a majority with blacks (largely due to single females) but growing, and nearing parity with Hispanics. Younger voters disproportionately approve of Trump's tariff policies. And last I looked, the youngest member of the House was in the GOP.
"Younger voters disproportionately approve of Trump's tariff policies."
For sane people who may be reading this:
18-29 disapproval of Trump: 65%
30-44 disapproval of Trump: 52%
YouGov/Economist: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_s_Presidency_poll_results.pdf
(anything to say about how Trump's gonna secure those trade surpluses with the USD as the reserve currency yet?)
Yeah, it's sad about all the deaths and, still, the reliance on other elderly to man the ramparts of Congress. But, it's interesting that, now, you are concerned about the increase in spending over the next 10 years. Where were you when Democrats passed the ridiculously named Inflation Reduction Act and the Build Back Better deal? Huh?
If I could wave a magic wand I’d make term limits mandatory for congress. 2 senate terms. 4 house terms. And no one can run again over 65.
The democrats will never be the party of youth unless they actively recruit young candidates and actively push out the ones who clearly are not able to represent their constituents, The party management needs to adopt this policy explicitly. Excellent post.
This should probably be approached through some sort of testing to have approval to run. Not age. Age is too hard to fight. Maybe have a team of one Left, one liberal, one moderate, one Republican, and one far-right watch the testing? Same doctor for everyone.
Maybe the universe is trying to tell the Democrats something. They do have the experts to translate the universe to themselves don’t they?
https://www.termlimits.com/#
It's not really age. I am not sure how you get at cognitive decline. Whatever you think about Bernie and Trump, they are certainly vigorous. Both of them are working on trying to pass the baton. Both AOC and JD are Millennials. Hard to do for an ego driven politician and I compliment both.
I recognize the pros and cons of enacting additional laws (or Constitutional amendments) to limit whom the voters can vote for (although I have frequently complained about the current de-facto system in which the extremist activists in each major party limit voters' choices).
But one change that I think should be a no-brainer is to limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices to 18 years, with the terms staggered such that one expires every two years (2 years X 9 Justices = 18 years). That both (a) gives each Justice a substantial term, (b) gives each President the opportunity to appoint two new Justices, and (3) provides a reasonable limit on the age that a serving Justice can reach (assuming that a future President and Senate are competent to add 18 years to the age of any potential Supreme Court nominee).
It's not just members of Congress who have an aging problem. Look at the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a sad example of someone who should have left but didn't. The is photo at the link is shocking; she's at the White House with President Obama. One wonders if he was trying to persuade her to retire. https://eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ruth-Bader-Ginsberg-Barack-Obama.jpg
In 2028, the Democrats should not nominate a presidential or vice presidential candidate who will be 60 or older on Election Day.