Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+23
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Please make sure discussions center around congress, they've been pretty wandery
Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm unwilling to classify this as elder abuse
The problem for democratic leadership in the Senate, is that even if they wanted to remove Feinstein, they can't. Enough of the GOP will refuse to vote to expel her because they know her still being in the seat enables them to get shit they want, but preventing anything from getting done. In way, to temporarily replace her was testing the waters. The GOP refused because it meant shit on the judiciary committee would start moving again and their goal when not in power is to prevent shit from happening and then blame in on the democrats.
The worst part, is how the GOP and our shitty corporate media will spin things if the democrats try and fail. They will spin it as the democrats ignoring the will of the people, which is going to be: especially, galling given how both have a complete disdain for democracy. Sadly, there are enough dipshits that will buy the narrative and fail to get that the will of California's voters is being ignored by the fact that someone who cannot do the job occupies one of their senate seats and that it's her staffers, who are unelected, that are calling the shots.
Feinstein is my go to example at this point for the need to implement a mandatory retirement age in Congress. Term limits are dumb and shouldn't be implemented; however, we do need some sort of anti-gerontocracy measures in place. I have no issue, if someone wants to keep sending the same person back, if that person is able to fulfill the functions of the job. My issue is when that person is incapable and I'd even argue that with how the election process in California works, people aren't really given much of a choice. Once she makes it to the general, she probably gets most of the republican voters because they know she isn't all there and enough other actors ensure that you get enough low information voters pushing her to the front. I don't buy into conspiracies, but I 'm of the opinion that the lead of her retirement was done intentionally so that her staff couldn't engineer a setup where she gets elected again.
Just have to hope that she is somehow convinced to retire ASAP, so that the seat can be filled with someone able to do the job. Granted, I don't envy Gov. Newsom's position. A number of people want that seat and there are going to be people that will not be able with his decision on who he would ultimately pick to fill the seat. Also don't really envy the person that would get picked because they'll have to deal with a certain level of bullshit, where people imply they didn't earn the seat, which may or may not be true. If I were Newsom, I'd actually be doing behind the scenes discussions to try and come up with some sort of consensus, so that if Feinstein vacates, be that via retirement or the reaper's intervention, he can quickly fill the seat with the least amount of drama.
Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm unwilling to classify this as elder abuse
She is not well and isn’t capable of making decisions that are in her own best interest. And her staff is taking advantage of that to manipulate her and take her power without being elected to it.
That’s… pretty classic elder abuse. She needs to be retired and focus on her health and well-being but she can’t because she does not have the faculties to comprehend how she is being controlled.
The continued aging of the US leadership is honestly a really good argument for the idea that there needs to be an age cap. Blah blah blah people can remain functional long beyond whatever age...sure, whatever. But the point is we know at some point they won't, and it's national leadership. Setting a sensible age cap at which point we say "you must pass power onto the next generation, because they're the ones who'll be inheriting the results" just makes sense. If you're so good at what you do beyond that then you can be a trusted adviser, think tank member, invited guest whatever.
But it does not seem unreasonable to me to set a target for an average age of no more then 50 in the main bodies, and a maximum age of 65. If nothing else, enforcing those boundaries would lead to party machines which actually planned for power transitions (which is, ironically, a Democrat problem more then a Republican one since the pubs are happy to just send any insane person to lead the country).
+4
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited April 2023
As someone whose work involved child and elder abuse, no, this isn't elder abuse. It's shitty and unethical, but it's not physical, emotional, or financial abuse unless there's something really weird going on that I don't know about.
Now if you want to call it constituent abuse, sure, I'm on board.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think it's kind of like someone voting for their parent with dementia in the way that they think that they would have voted. It's not with malice, but it's not right either.
The continued aging of the US leadership is honestly a really good argument for the idea that there needs to be an age cap. Blah blah blah people can remain functional long beyond whatever age...sure, whatever. But the point is we know at some point they won't, and it's national leadership. Setting a sensible age cap at which point we say "you must pass power onto the next generation, because they're the ones who'll be inheriting the results" just makes sense. If you're so good at what you do beyond that then you can be a trusted adviser, think tank member, invited guest whatever.
But it does not seem unreasonable to me to set a target for an average age of no more then 50 in the main bodies, and a maximum age of 65. If nothing else, enforcing those boundaries would lead to party machines which actually planned for power transitions (which is, ironically, a Democrat problem more then a Republican one since the pubs are happy to just send any insane person to lead the country).
Cardinals over the age of 80 cannot vote in a Papal Conclave.
+5
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
And quite honestly we don’t know this is against her wishes.
It’s entirely possible that Feinstein is trying to hold power and plans to get over her ailment and go back to the senate.
You can disagree with the decision, and I agree she should resign.
And I’m a fan of term/age limits for congress. And maybe Dems should develop the infrastructure Republicans have to retire congressional people so they’ll actually retire.
Because congress will never vote for a law that limits themselves.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
I just can't synch with that mentality, like its not in me.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In their heads it’s “wow, they spent their whole life as a public servant, how inspiring”
In everyone else’s it’s “wow, they really held on to power until the cold touch of death finally came for them, huh”
I guess for me and again I wholely admit I'm not an anything people will never know my name etc. When I'm old enough/wealthy enough to never work again I'm fucking not.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm unwilling to classify this as elder abuse
She is not well and isn’t capable of making decisions that are in her own best interest. And her staff is taking advantage of that to manipulate her and take her power without being elected to it.
That’s… pretty classic elder abuse. She needs to be retired and focus on her health and well-being but she can’t because she does not have the faculties to comprehend how she is being controlled.
No, it isn't.
El Jeffe explains it above, but what's happening to Feinstein is not only not elder abuse, but it calling it elder abuse cheapens the actual abuse that happens to the elderly just about everywhere.
And I say this as someone who has cares for the elderly for quite literally my entire career.
MegaMan001 on
I am in the business of saving lives.
+5
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
The continued aging of the US leadership is honestly a really good argument for the idea that there needs to be an age cap. Blah blah blah people can remain functional long beyond whatever age...sure, whatever. But the point is we know at some point they won't, and it's national leadership. Setting a sensible age cap at which point we say "you must pass power onto the next generation, because they're the ones who'll be inheriting the results" just makes sense. If you're so good at what you do beyond that then you can be a trusted adviser, think tank member, invited guest whatever.
But it does not seem unreasonable to me to set a target for an average age of no more then 50 in the main bodies, and a maximum age of 65. If nothing else, enforcing those boundaries would lead to party machines which actually planned for power transitions (which is, ironically, a Democrat problem more then a Republican one since the pubs are happy to just send any insane person to lead the country).
Cardinals over the age of 80 cannot vote in a Papal Conclave.
As someone whose work involved child and elder abuse, no, this isn't elder abuse. It's shitty and unethical, but it's not physical, emotional, or financial abuse unless there's something really weird going on that I don't know about.
Now if you want to call it constituent abuse, sure, I'm on board.
It's entirely elder abuse because they are getting Feinstein to exercise legal powers that she doesn't have the mental faculties to exercise properly. Do you think Feinstein should be relaxing in a care facility, or getting driven around DC and having to work some days from morning until midnight due to stupid voting rules? Just because they aren't beating her doesn't mean they aren't inflicting physical or emotional harm in how she is being treated.
Imagine the rage if she were like a WalMart manager and it was discovered that the store's middle managers had been covering for her and running the show for years.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
For them, 'spending time with their family' is hardcoded to mean 'resign from public view in disgrace'.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
Nancy Pelosi didn't amass $100M while she was in office to "change the world" around her. I'm not saying she was a bad rep overall or any more corrupt than most of her colleagues, but lets be real about the kind of money some of our public servants have managed to make for themselves during their half-century tenure.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
Nancy Pelosi didn't amass $100M while she was in office to "change the world" around her. I'm not saying she was a bad rep overall or any more corrupt than most of her colleagues, but lets be real about the kind of money some of our public servants have managed to make for themselves during their half-century tenure.
You are creating a false dichotomy. It's not either or. Pelosi absolutely held on to her position in order to wield power. Not just to make money but even more so to be the one in the room who gets to make the decisions. When that's your job, the incentives to retire are much different and much lower.
Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm unwilling to classify this as elder abuse
Either her staff are abusing her, or she is cogniscent of her own lack of capability to do her job and she and her staff are abusing the US public for their own gain.
Either way, this doesn't look very good right now for her or her staff and she needs to retire immediately.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
If your job is just pure fun to you, why would you ever want to retire?
To make room for someone else to have a crack at representing the next generation. Greed takes many forms and fuels a lot of these rich octogenarians unwillingness to step aside.
For some, holding public office isn’t too far removed from being retired anyway. Low effort with mostly perks, people in a safe state/district that don’t particularly care about accomplishing anything, it’s just not a lot of work.
A lot of it is just social club shit anyways. Show up, see your friends (on both sides of the aisle!), let your staff do the heavy lifting, occasionally push a button to vote, go home.
That's time in session, and doesn't include all of the non-session meetings, begging for fundraising, etc.
Oh sure. But like I said, that's if you want to do the actual job well, and need to work to get re-elected.
If you're in a safe state (like Cali for a Democrat), and don't have to worry about a primary challenge (because Democratic policy makes it more difficult for challengers), you can fob off a lot of those responsibilities.
Same with the meetings. I am pretty sure it was Feinstein a year or two back, that completely blew off some young people who sought audience.
If you want or need to do your job well, a lot of time is taken up. If you don't, that's a LOT of time to spend on personal business.
It would suck incredibly if Sherrod Brown got age-limited
DiFi, Bernie, Cardin, Durbin, Markey, Blumenthal, Welch, Hirono, and Carper are all D senators 75 or older from states that should have no problem electing any non-catastrophic candidate with a D next to their name
King, Shaheen, and Manchin are over 75 but from squirrely states
Seems like the cut off age should be around 66-70. That seems to be around the point where we start to see the tipping point for decline from aging kicking in. Be that losing their damn mind, being constantly sick or at risk of a single significant health event that would normally be survivable, escalating into something pretty lethal. Sure there are going to be people in Congress that might have won both the genetic lottery and obviously, the wealth lottery, who could easily be in very good shape mentally and physically well into their 80s. Problem is if you try to do it case by case, that's too easily abusable where you get people doc shopping to either get a doctor to sign off for someone that is not fit for office and also bullshit where people insist that X congress critter, that they want gone, needs to see a doc that is likely to make that happen, even if that congress critter is fit to serve. Also a ton of debate over what constantly constitutes not fit to serve. With the big one being absences due to illness.
There is also the whole issue, where there are a ton of incentives that encourage people, who are fit to serve, to cling to power until they either lose their re-election or die. That actually is very bad for the public's interest; especially, when we consider gerrymandering, the outsized role of money and how there absences & potential vacancies can mean that their constituents have absolutely no say on a number of important policies that are voted on during those absences and vacancies.
Then there is the whole issue where it's rather bad to have some out of touch fuckers, that know they'll be dead long before the chickens come home to roost on their policy decisions. It's a setup that doesn't encourage looking to the future, but only looking into "what benefits me now." If they are out of office before they die or aren't really there anymore. It means having to live in a country where they don't get to call the shots until the end of their lives, so they might have some real incentive to try and make sure that the next generation of leadership can do a good job.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Feinstein is failing at her job and should be removed. Democratic Leadership is failing their constituents by not removing her.
But, honestly, I'm also pissed at her staff and advisors. They have a responsibility to report her actual problems. They should go to said leadership and if nothing is done you go to the next person up the chain of command and if you don't get action then you might have to go public.
If I didn't report an impaired colleague and they hurt a patient I would be as responsible for any harm just as they would and I don't think it's wrong to hold politicians to that same standard.
Yeah, you might torpedo your career (as I might as well if I went public about an impaired colleague), but that's the breaks.
The problem is that there is little that Democratic leadership can do to remove her, especially since California went to jungle "primaries" and removed that bit of leverage.
A lot of folks at that level of government genuinely and sincerely want to die in office. It's a point of pride or something for the historical record. Everyone else be damned.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
Nancy Pelosi didn't amass $100M while she was in office to "change the world" around her. I'm not saying she was a bad rep overall or any more corrupt than most of her colleagues, but lets be real about the kind of money some of our public servants have managed to make for themselves during their half-century tenure.
You are creating a false dichotomy. It's not either or. Pelosi absolutely held on to her position in order to wield power. Not just to make money but even more so to be the one in the room who gets to make the decisions. When that's your job, the incentives to retire are much different and much lower.
And while I agree older senators should generally pave the way for newer ones, I think a lot of folks are just assuming anyone wanting to remain in the job is just drunk on power and likes lording it over people.
Like, pretend you were suddenly elected senator. You've spent your life thinking the world can be a better place, and now you can actually work to make it happen.
Well, kinda. You're a junior senator, so realistically you can't do shit. But after a couple terms, now you have some power. You get on a committee. NOW you can do some things.
Kinda. The other guys on the committee have dumb ideas and block all your good ones.
Okay, a few more terms and now you're fucking majority leader! Hell yeah! You finally have the power to try to enact all the policies you know are best for the country. It's slow going, though. You get maybe one policy addressed every few years, and there's so much you want to get done while you still can. And you look at the other guys in the room, and they're not bad people, per se, but they just don't understand what the job entails. They wouldn't get things done like you can. You'll step aside after just one... more... achievement.... After all, there's people out there hurting, and it would be irresponsible to retire before you get them the help they desperately need.
I think anybody going "Well obviously I would bop on out of there as soon at I hit 65 because it's the right thing to do" is lying to themselves about how easy that decision is, even if you're solely interested in the betterment of the country.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Huh, it's like the retirement age was set at 65 because that's the point at which corporate America recognizes a distinct performance fall off (statistically, not in a specific case).
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.
Posts
Staff is worse than that. They're committing elder abuse to maintain power (and functionally usurp a Senate seat).
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm unwilling to classify this as elder abuse
The worst part, is how the GOP and our shitty corporate media will spin things if the democrats try and fail. They will spin it as the democrats ignoring the will of the people, which is going to be: especially, galling given how both have a complete disdain for democracy. Sadly, there are enough dipshits that will buy the narrative and fail to get that the will of California's voters is being ignored by the fact that someone who cannot do the job occupies one of their senate seats and that it's her staffers, who are unelected, that are calling the shots.
Feinstein is my go to example at this point for the need to implement a mandatory retirement age in Congress. Term limits are dumb and shouldn't be implemented; however, we do need some sort of anti-gerontocracy measures in place. I have no issue, if someone wants to keep sending the same person back, if that person is able to fulfill the functions of the job. My issue is when that person is incapable and I'd even argue that with how the election process in California works, people aren't really given much of a choice. Once she makes it to the general, she probably gets most of the republican voters because they know she isn't all there and enough other actors ensure that you get enough low information voters pushing her to the front. I don't buy into conspiracies, but I 'm of the opinion that the lead of her retirement was done intentionally so that her staff couldn't engineer a setup where she gets elected again.
Just have to hope that she is somehow convinced to retire ASAP, so that the seat can be filled with someone able to do the job. Granted, I don't envy Gov. Newsom's position. A number of people want that seat and there are going to be people that will not be able with his decision on who he would ultimately pick to fill the seat. Also don't really envy the person that would get picked because they'll have to deal with a certain level of bullshit, where people imply they didn't earn the seat, which may or may not be true. If I were Newsom, I'd actually be doing behind the scenes discussions to try and come up with some sort of consensus, so that if Feinstein vacates, be that via retirement or the reaper's intervention, he can quickly fill the seat with the least amount of drama.
She is not well and isn’t capable of making decisions that are in her own best interest. And her staff is taking advantage of that to manipulate her and take her power without being elected to it.
That’s… pretty classic elder abuse. She needs to be retired and focus on her health and well-being but she can’t because she does not have the faculties to comprehend how she is being controlled.
But it does not seem unreasonable to me to set a target for an average age of no more then 50 in the main bodies, and a maximum age of 65. If nothing else, enforcing those boundaries would lead to party machines which actually planned for power transitions (which is, ironically, a Democrat problem more then a Republican one since the pubs are happy to just send any insane person to lead the country).
Now if you want to call it constituent abuse, sure, I'm on board.
Cardinals over the age of 80 cannot vote in a Papal Conclave.
It’s entirely possible that Feinstein is trying to hold power and plans to get over her ailment and go back to the senate.
You can disagree with the decision, and I agree she should resign.
And I’m a fan of term/age limits for congress. And maybe Dems should develop the infrastructure Republicans have to retire congressional people so they’ll actually retire.
Because congress will never vote for a law that limits themselves.
I just can't synch with that mentality, like its not in me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
In everyone else’s it’s “wow, they really held on to power until the cold touch of death finally came for them, huh”
I guess for me and again I wholely admit I'm not an anything people will never know my name etc. When I'm old enough/wealthy enough to never work again I'm fucking not.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, it isn't.
El Jeffe explains it above, but what's happening to Feinstein is not only not elder abuse, but it calling it elder abuse cheapens the actual abuse that happens to the elderly just about everywhere.
And I say this as someone who has cares for the elderly for quite literally my entire career.
Dang, even the Catholic Church sets an age limit?
Well, at the top end, anyway.
It's entirely elder abuse because they are getting Feinstein to exercise legal powers that she doesn't have the mental faculties to exercise properly. Do you think Feinstein should be relaxing in a care facility, or getting driven around DC and having to work some days from morning until midnight due to stupid voting rules? Just because they aren't beating her doesn't mean they aren't inflicting physical or emotional harm in how she is being treated.
Imagine the rage if she were like a WalMart manager and it was discovered that the store's middle managers had been covering for her and running the show for years.
Which I don't understand at all as my wife and I plan on retiring and enjoying the rest of our lives with each other as soon as we can, but I guess I've never had the taste of power they have.
Very few people get to be President so being a Senator, especially a senior one, is the highest level of political power they are ever going to achieve. And they don't want to let it go. It's different then just being someone who works to make money. For them, especially with the power of incumbency, as long as they working, they get to change the world around them. Retirement means something different when working means political power. It makes sense they'd just want to keep going.
Nancy Pelosi didn't amass $100M while she was in office to "change the world" around her. I'm not saying she was a bad rep overall or any more corrupt than most of her colleagues, but lets be real about the kind of money some of our public servants have managed to make for themselves during their half-century tenure.
You are creating a false dichotomy. It's not either or. Pelosi absolutely held on to her position in order to wield power. Not just to make money but even more so to be the one in the room who gets to make the decisions. When that's your job, the incentives to retire are much different and much lower.
So what, it's only abuse of Feinstein's lack of faculties because she's a Senator?
Or is it just that we don't care if our elderly are taken advantage of?
Also, if you're not heavily invested in either constituent work, or getting re-elected, then you get a fuckload of free time during the work year.
A quick look at last year had them working 29 full weeks, 6 short weeks, and 17 weeks off.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/2022_schedule.htm
It's hard work if you are committed to service. But if you're not, that's a pretty cushy schedule.
I forget which fuck senator said this a few years back related to McCain iirc
Either her staff are abusing her, or she is cogniscent of her own lack of capability to do her job and she and her staff are abusing the US public for their own gain.
Either way, this doesn't look very good right now for her or her staff and she needs to retire immediately.
To make room for someone else to have a crack at representing the next generation. Greed takes many forms and fuels a lot of these rich octogenarians unwillingness to step aside.
Oh sure. But like I said, that's if you want to do the actual job well, and need to work to get re-elected.
If you're in a safe state (like Cali for a Democrat), and don't have to worry about a primary challenge (because Democratic policy makes it more difficult for challengers), you can fob off a lot of those responsibilities.
Same with the meetings. I am pretty sure it was Feinstein a year or two back, that completely blew off some young people who sought audience.
If you want or need to do your job well, a lot of time is taken up. If you don't, that's a LOT of time to spend on personal business.
DiFi, Bernie, Cardin, Durbin, Markey, Blumenthal, Welch, Hirono, and Carper are all D senators 75 or older from states that should have no problem electing any non-catastrophic candidate with a D next to their name
King, Shaheen, and Manchin are over 75 but from squirrely states
Edit: god damnit Cruz is younger than Fetterman
There is also the whole issue, where there are a ton of incentives that encourage people, who are fit to serve, to cling to power until they either lose their re-election or die. That actually is very bad for the public's interest; especially, when we consider gerrymandering, the outsized role of money and how there absences & potential vacancies can mean that their constituents have absolutely no say on a number of important policies that are voted on during those absences and vacancies.
Then there is the whole issue where it's rather bad to have some out of touch fuckers, that know they'll be dead long before the chickens come home to roost on their policy decisions. It's a setup that doesn't encourage looking to the future, but only looking into "what benefits me now." If they are out of office before they die or aren't really there anymore. It means having to live in a country where they don't get to call the shots until the end of their lives, so they might have some real incentive to try and make sure that the next generation of leadership can do a good job.
The problem is that there is little that Democratic leadership can do to remove her, especially since California went to jungle "primaries" and removed that bit of leverage.
And while I agree older senators should generally pave the way for newer ones, I think a lot of folks are just assuming anyone wanting to remain in the job is just drunk on power and likes lording it over people.
Like, pretend you were suddenly elected senator. You've spent your life thinking the world can be a better place, and now you can actually work to make it happen.
Well, kinda. You're a junior senator, so realistically you can't do shit. But after a couple terms, now you have some power. You get on a committee. NOW you can do some things.
Kinda. The other guys on the committee have dumb ideas and block all your good ones.
Okay, a few more terms and now you're fucking majority leader! Hell yeah! You finally have the power to try to enact all the policies you know are best for the country. It's slow going, though. You get maybe one policy addressed every few years, and there's so much you want to get done while you still can. And you look at the other guys in the room, and they're not bad people, per se, but they just don't understand what the job entails. They wouldn't get things done like you can. You'll step aside after just one... more... achievement.... After all, there's people out there hurting, and it would be irresponsible to retire before you get them the help they desperately need.
I think anybody going "Well obviously I would bop on out of there as soon at I hit 65 because it's the right thing to do" is lying to themselves about how easy that decision is, even if you're solely interested in the betterment of the country.
Was it based on that? I figure it was more based on actuarial tables and negotiation between interested parties in what was feasible to support retired folks for ~7 more years or whatever
Also IRAs/401ks, annuities, and social security all have different ages and rules around them. Lots of professions have negotiated for much lower retirement ages as well.
As always, the age is based on the evergreen conflict between labor and capital and the government inserting itself therein based on fiscal (lol) and political factors.