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.

  • PaintedSnail@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

    • Kerrigor@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • KrayZeeOne@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        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