This is an interesting topic from another thread (https://csnbbs.com/thread-994964.html) that I think warrants a discussion on its own -

(08-14-2024 07:51 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-13-2024 02:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not a modern liberal as defined by U.S. politics. I'll be up front and say that I don't care for Trump. I think there were a few better alternatives to him. I also think he's too old - not because I think he's compromised like Biden wrt mental health - but based on age alone he's at a point where he can easily start failing mentally. I support having every politician over the age of 70.5 years old permanently banned from running for elected office (of any kind) or holding an elected position.

...

You want to toss decades of experience out then. I have no issue with older politicians who have their wits about them.

I think miko33 and TigerBlue4Ever both have a real point here. Ultimately I agree with miko that some limitation is needed, because the voters in both parties are not doing a good job of policing the incompetence of some of their elected representatives - e.g. Senator Strom Thurmond (R of South Carolina) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D of California).

Tiger also has a great point though, and I agree with him that the experience of some of our more mature elected leaders is highly valuable. Aged doesn't always mean incompetent...for instance love him or hate him, does anybody think Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont isn't mentally sharp enough to do the job? Same for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the oldest current member of the Senate.

What do you think? Leave things as is and it's up to the voters whether or not to return elderly leaders to office?

Or do we need a hard limit based on age, and if so what age?

Or do all candidates for federal office need to submit to cognitive testing and pass to be eligible to run? If so, who does the testing? Requiring just a statement of fitness from any licensed physician would be ripe for abuse and seems to me to change nothing.

Yes, there should be a cognitive test. How about a civics test for the electorate? I think that would be way more beneficial. If you can't at the very least name the 3 branches of the government, explain how bills become law and the very basics of how our nations court systems work you shouldn't be allowed to vote IMHO.

I might even take it further and require an IQ test. If you're below 90 you probably shouldn't be voting. 80 or lower has no business anywhere near the polling place.

My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I will posit that in the private sector that almost no one past the age of 70.5 is working in any meaningful way. There are exceptions but I would argue that in almost all of those - like an old CEO - the older person has an ownership stake in the business. In major corporations I'd say older people in their 70s would be board members and not running the company directly. Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch are 2 examples of people who are older but have ownership stakes in private companies

I mentioned a strict stop for elected officials. However, no reason why older people couldn't be in advisory positions - similar to board members for corporations without binding authority.

(08-14-2024 08:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I agree on all points. I do wonder if this might be the rare type of issue these days where a constitutional amendment might have a chance to pass? If it were me, I'd apply it to all elected officials and any appointed officials who require Senate confirmation, current officeholders excluded. So it would cover POTUS, Cabinet, Ambassadors, Supreme Court, Congress, etc. Leave the current occupants of those offices out (otherwise it'd never get through Congress), and also recognize that they were appointed/elected under a system where lifetime service was at least a possibility.

I just can't get my head around a way that a cognitive capability test could be applied neutrally across the country to all candidates for federal office either. So I agree that an age limit would be the better path, although it would unfortunately remove from service some of our most experienced and seasoned leaders who are still quite capable. To minimize that harm I like 80 as you said, I think 70 is too low.

Yes, 75 years old and have to pass a cognizant test every year after about 65.

(08-14-2024 08:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I'm with you. I think its been clearly proven that "experts" can't be trusted.

I would be fine with 80. 65 is ridiculously low and 70-75 would not apply to everyone.
Ben Franklin was fine in his 80s, but there aren't many.

I think the real issue is that we need term limits. Parties won't kick out long term incumbents. They have too much power and money behind them. We have a lot of one party states and districts. And parties are weird sometimes. Why would the Democrats choose Biden and Harris, probably the two worst, most incompetent people in the party, to run for president? And it was the party leadership that pushed those two. I would hate Pocahontas as president, but it wouldn't be scary. Biden and Harris are scary bad.

(08-14-2024 08:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I will posit that in the private sector that almost no one past the age of 70.5 is working in any meaningful way. There are exceptions but I would argue that in almost all of those - like an old CEO - the older person has an ownership stake in the business. In major corporations I'd say older people in their 70s would be board members and not running the company directly. Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch are 2 examples of people who are older but have ownership stakes in private companies

I mentioned a strict stop for elected officials. However, no reason why older people couldn't be in advisory positions - similar to board members for corporations without binding authority.

Michael DeBakey was doing heart surgery in his 90s.

(08-14-2024 09:06 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 08:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I agree on all points. I do wonder if this might be the rare type of issue these days where a constitutional amendment might have a chance to pass? If it were me, I'd apply it to all elected officials and any appointed officials who require Senate confirmation, current officeholders excluded. So it would cover POTUS, Cabinet, Ambassadors, Supreme Court, Congress, etc. Leave the current occupants of those offices out (otherwise it'd never get through Congress), and also recognize that they were appointed/elected under a system where lifetime service was at least a possibility.

I just can't get my head around a way that a cognitive capability test could be applied neutrally across the country to all candidates for federal office either. So I agree that an age limit would be the better path, although it would unfortunately remove from service some of our most experienced and seasoned leaders who are still quite capable. To minimize that harm I like 80 as you said, I think 70 is too low.

Here’s 1 rare exception-

Our delivery driver at work is 82. He can’t read or write but he has a drivers license from way back in the day when you only had to pass a driving test. He’s killed 2 people (1 was a manslaughter charge, 1 was in self defense in prison), was in prison briefly with James Earl Ray. Couldn’t tell you how many DUIs he got back in the day, but he said once he woke up and his car was in the Loosahatchie River. Another time he got up one morning and had blood all over his car and had no idea if it was from a person or animal. Been sober for 40 years and shows up every morning at 5:30am to open the office/ shop following a 30 min commute. Works until 3:30 or whenever he gets thru. Still lifting 40-50 lb boxes, carrying 20 ft sticks of pipe, operating heavy equipment. He’s really got a pretty fascinating life story. He’ll “die with his boots on” as they say but working is all he knows so he’ll keep going until he doesn’t.

Agree with the age range or 75-80. Of course there are outliers, but there have been plenty of studies that show serious cognitive decline begins in most people after the age of 75. Here is an abstract from a study from 2020.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153285/

A hard age limit is discriminatory.

An annual competency exam (e.g. MMSE) videoed for the record would be legal and acceptable.*

*When I was a nuke we had mandatory annuals, physical and mental, to meet.

(08-14-2024 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 08:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I will posit that in the private sector that almost no one past the age of 70.5 is working in any meaningful way. There are exceptions but I would argue that in almost all of those - like an old CEO - the older person has an ownership stake in the business. In major corporations I'd say older people in their 70s would be board members and not running the company directly. Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch are 2 examples of people who are older but have ownership stakes in private companies

I mentioned a strict stop for elected officials. However, no reason why older people couldn't be in advisory positions - similar to board members for corporations without binding authority.

Michael DeBakey was doing heart surgery in his 90s.

There are also individuals who can function perfectly fine in society despite heavy drug use. They are a rare breed just like a 90 year hold heart surgeon - exceptions to the norms. As pointed out earlier, administering cognitive tests to older politicians wouldn't be trustworthy given the incentives to cheat. So...ditch the tests and set firm age limits.

I frankly don't understand though - why can't older people just be advisors? Why can't younger politicians simply have 1 or 2 older people on staff in advisory roles only? Even with age limits, there's nothing prevent younger politicians from seeking the advice of older folks.

Why can people in the private sector feel content to retire at 67 or 70.5 when they have to take minimum withdrawals from retirement accounts? What makes politicians so different where they can easily push beyond 70 and continue "working" when private sector employees can hang it up and move on?

Dumb people vote dumb politicians in & tests to vote were struck down as racist. We get what we pay for

Term limits would have saved us from people like Biden, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Mitch McConnell who end up in office so long they need a drool bucket.

No age test. No cognitive test. What I would support is term limits for congressmen and senators. No more professional politicians. Four terms as representative and two terms as senator—-that’s plenty. I also wouldn’t mind a system prevents a district from sending anyone with the same degree or professional license to the same congressional seat consecutively. In other words, I’d like to see a Congress that looks less like a lawyers convention and more like the working population it serves. I also would like to see a law preventing anyone who has served in Congress or held rank above captain in the military being allowed to serve as a lobbyist for a company with a federal contract.

Term limits wouldn’t fix the problem b/c you’d still get whoever the machine wants.

Term limits and you are precluded from being a lobbyist once you are out.

I'd peg the salary for all federal elected officials at the annual median salary for the US per the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. So around $55k a year.

(08-14-2024 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No age test. No cognitive test. What I would support is term limits for congressmen and senators. No more professional politicians. Four terms as representative and two terms as senator—-that’s plenty. I also wouldn’t mind a system prevents a district from sending anyone with the same degree or professional license to the same congressional seat consecutively. In other words, I’d like to see a Congress that looks less like a lawyers convention and more like the working population it serves. I also would like to see a law preventing anyone who has served in Congress or held rank above captain in the military being allowed to serve as a lobbyist for a company with a federal contract.

That is a very interesting idea I don't recall ever hearing before. I do think we'd all be happier with a Congress featuring more diversity of profession vs. the current extremely lawyer heavy legislature.

As a means to a similar end, I have often wondered about the possibility of having a House of Representatives selected entirely using the jury selection system? A true peoples House, one obvious downside being nobody would know what the hell they were doing for at least the first year of the 2 year term.

(08-14-2024 10:20 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Term limits wouldn’t fix the problem b/c you’d still get whoever the machine wants.

Nothing fixes that. If we choose our leaders poorly---we deserve the result.

(08-14-2024 10:25 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No age test. No cognitive test. What I would support is term limits for congressmen and senators. No more professional politicians. Four terms as representative and two terms as senator—-that’s plenty. I also wouldn’t mind a system prevents a district from sending anyone with the same degree or professional license to the same congressional seat consecutively. In other words, I’d like to see a Congress that looks less like a lawyers convention and more like the working population it serves. I also would like to see a law preventing anyone who has served in Congress or held rank above captain in the military being allowed to serve as a lobbyist for a company with a federal contract.

That is a very interesting idea I don't recall ever hearing before. I do think we'd all be happier with a Congress featuring more diversity of profession vs. the current extremely lawyer heavy legislature.

As a means to a similar end, I have often wondered about the possibility of having a House of Representatives selected entirely using the jury selection system? A true peoples House, one obvious downside being nobody would know what the hell they were doing for at least the first year of the 2 year term.

lol---Ive often said I think we'd be better served being run by a congress selected randomly from the phone book than we are under todays lifelong political ruling class. It would certainly be closer to the founding fathers expectation that the Congress would be filled with relatively normal citizens who spent a few years in the national capital making laws and then would return home to live their lives under the exact same laws they helped pass. I dont think they envisioned what we have now---where the creation of "safe districts" (for both parties) has created the kind of "ruling class" in Washington we seem to have these days. One more thing---Congress should have the same retirement plan as the normal US citizen. That would certainly increase the likelihood that Social Security remains a good solid program for both current and future retirees.