A confused Dianne Feinstein tried to give a speech in the middle of a Senate hearing vote and was told to 'just say aye' instead
businessinsider.com
Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared confused during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday. When asked to vote on a proposal, Feinstein began giving a lengthy speech instead of simply saying "aye" or "nay" as requested. The committee chair, Senator Patty Murray, had to repeatedly tell Feinstein "just say aye" and remind her that it was time for a vote, not speeches. After some delay, Feinstein finally cast her vote. A spokesperson said Feinstein was preoccupied and did not realize a vote had been called. The incident raises further concerns about Feinstein's ability to serve at age 90, as she has made other recent mistakes and often relies on aides.
You are viewing a single comment
If 67 is the age of retirement in this country, then every single politician should be leading by example and retiring by then. I’m so sick of these geriatrics effectively ordering an entire lobster before they leave the restaurant and stick the younger folks with the bill.
I think that would just result in an even bigger push by right-wing politicians to move the retirement age even higher.
Better would be to tie it to the average life expectancy, updated with each census.
Why should we be punished if life expectancy goes up? Nobody should have to work until they're too old to fully enjoy life.
That's literally the opposite of what I said
That's how I interpreted it too. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean our capacity for work is stretching further. My knees are already going out and I'm not near retirement age. I don't want to be stuck working longer, hating every moment of it, knowing that all this means is now I won't actually get to enjoy retirement
To play devil's advocate, when Social Security was established (bringing with it the concept of a "retirement age"), the age of eligibility was deliberately set such that less than half of Americans would live long enough to draw on it. The clear expectation was that you would work until you couldn't anymore.
That said, in an era when changes in life expectancy are starting to take on a K-shaped distribution and labor force participation has been on a long steady decline, tying governmental income support to age and employment duration is becoming distributionally regressive. I'd much rather have some sort of UBI system that everyone can benefit from.
Average life expectency goes up over time due to advancements in healthcare. Tying the retirement age to the average life expectency is effectively raising the retirement age.
It's actually going down in the US. And again, I said tie the office age limits to life expectancy, not retirement age.
Can you please explain the difference between office age limits and retirement age?
Oh sure! So "retirement age" means the age at which the general population is eligible for certain benefits like tax-deferred account withdraw without penalty, social security benefits, Medicare, etc. Politicians generally go WAY past this age, well beyond cognitive decline, because they do not want to lose power.
Office age limits are (and should continue to be) unrelated to retirement age; otherwise it creates an incentive for politicians to RAISE the retirement age even further so that they can stay in office. Republicans already try often to increase the retirement age so that people will be stuck working until they die.
Oh, that kind of office.
I'm not a fan of this. Moving the retirement age to life expectancy would mean that you only get to retire if you live beyond your expiration date.
I think they mean "average life expectancy minus n years" where n is fixed at 15, or whatever. But I disagree with this too. If you work 40 years, you deserve to retire in comfort. If a billionaire needs to have one fewer boats to help cover the cost boohoo to them and their other 5 boats.
I think Kerrigor meant that requiring politicians retire at the age of retirement would cause a push for retirement age to get bumped higher, and that it would be better for the maximum age for a politician to be tied to the average life expectancy (e.g. no more than 10 years younger than the average life expectancy, or some such).
Yep precisely! Sorry, I phrased it poorly. But this is exactly what I meant. If politicians are required to resign at retirement age, it creates a perverse incentive for them to RAISE the retirement age - which would be bad.
If it is tied to life expectancy minus ten years, then it is based on data that adjusts automatically, and it's less about age itself, more about average life expectancy remaining.
All this talk about "life expectancy" tied to retirement. Am I the only one around here that's blue collar tradesman that's gonna die in there 60's? How is 67 a reasonable retirement age?
This would also incentivise politicians to try and increase average life expectancy, which is probably most easily accomplished with universal healthcare. So that would be a win as well
To be fair, the user you replied to suggested it be tied to life expectancy, not set exactly at it. Things like "set it at life expectancy minus x years" or "life expectancy times x", where x is some value less than one like 0.8 or something, would be situations where the retirement age is tied to life expectancy but where one doesn't have to live longer than expected to get one.
Problem with all of this is, life expectancy is going down, and we know they're not just going to kindly lower it to accommodate us. Look at what happened in France this year just to keep it at the same age
But just because you are alive doesn't mean you are useful as a worker or shouldn't retire. If we tied retirement with us life expectancy minus 10 years then retirement would be 67. But in the future if people live until 90, 80 is not a good retirement age. They wouldn't be able to carry out a lot of the tasks required.
You’re probably right. And it’s not like any of them will ever vote for term limits. Our political system is a joke.
If we were serious about having an actual impact on climate change, we should be talking about how long it is actually fair or reasonable for any human being to live.
Are you suggesting we withhold medical treatment from people past a certain age?
No the retired need representation as well. You can't right a wrong with another wrong. There needs to be a system in place for health evaluation and once you fail that without having a viable and reasonable path to improvement then you're ineligible to be reelected. This needs multiple, separate, groups of people involved to reduce the risk of being used as a tool to oust undesirables. I can't design such a system but I trust that people more well versed in how government works in the nitty gritty could design a suitable, acceptable system.
They need representation, they don't need to be the whole representation. In fact, I'd say that 55+ people represent them quite well, since they are aiming to retire in the next decade anyways.
I mean, they can vote, and they are a big sector of the voting base, so even if the politicians are younger, there will be enough of them wanting to please the 67+ sector.
Let's add some babies and teenagers while we're at it. I don't see them represented.
I have no problem with lowering the voting age to 16.
If they're allowed to work, they should be allowed to vote.
But they can't be a senator until they are almost twice that.
Babies and teenagers are represented by their parents…at least in theory.
Old people can just be considered represented by their adult children then.
Yeah, it's not a great theory. Plenty of kids have bad/absent/dead parents. Plenty of old people have neglectful/nonexistent children.
Voting is supposed to do all this for us, it is the check/balance.
Problem is that more than half of Americans who should vote, don’t vote.
The problem is the 2-party system and the way they jam their thumbs onto the scale of what are supposed to be fair elections. Also, apathetic and ignorant voters across the spectrum. Not trying to "both sides" the issue, but these ghoulish geriatrics exist on both sides and consistently get re-elected.
I agree, I'm quick as anyone to joke about senility but to wholesale cut off our elders from decision making goes against all of social history.
All that knowledge and wisdom is valuable, even if it's just "we tried this and it didn't work"
You can easily make this argument towards teenagers as well, but they're obviously illegible. Yet their rights and futures are being stripped away by the elderly.
There should absolutely be a hard cap and Senators should also be forced to use the services they provide (i.e. stop making millions stock trading) post retirement so it's guaranteed to be beneficial.
The unhealthy need representation as well!
You should have known that.
Why do we need a law ? Didnt they, the people, vote for this old person or not ? I mean, if you are going to vote for a dry old person to represent you, that's on you, unless there's something I don't understand about the Senate.
Something about old money, when only old people are on the menu there's a systemic problem.
They're more than wealthy enough to engage in other activities and hobbies. They got rich in civil service, now it's time for them to GTFO and make room for a younger,
progressiveleftist generation.More likely they'd just raise the retirement age then...