There should be an age limit of 65 in all government. There are far too many people in our government that should be in a nursing home sleeping in congress and the House of Representatives not to mention our president. They should have to be able to pass a cognitive test at 60 and if they pass they can continue until 65. Once they hit 65 they are out. They qualify for Medicare they need to go. There are too many people who have been career politicians and they aren’t making things better they just keep getting worse. There should also be term limits ie. They can only be elected for so many terms and then they can’t run any longer just like the president. I think 7-10 years would be sufficient and if we have to change the terms they hold office that would work to limit the amount of politicians holding an office for 57 terms. We also need to get some younger Americans into office so that we the younger generation can have a say in our policies and how they are put into force. Now for a age limit on the young side I think 35-40 would be better since it’s 45 right now it would give them a fresh view on how those of us born in the 80s and 90s would do things. I also feel that they shouldn’t be able to make over 300,000 dollars a year just sitting in an office. These people are already well off and paying them that highly is just feeding them to stay and run over and over and no one new can get a seat until they run out of limits but there aren’t limits currently.
This would violate the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Term limits would be a better alternative to prevent politicians from staying in office for decades at a time.
Term limits, plus to make sure there is an audit system. Ideas to brainstorm on are anyone taking office MUST agree to have transparency in income for themselves. All financial records open to public security and following the money trail wherever and whoever it goes too until they leave office. How many political firhures left millionaires?…
Term limits 10 years max.
Age limits don’t work because people lose function at hugely varying rates. Just in my extended family, we’ve got people who are losing mental capability and physicical/energy stamina at 50, and some who are still smarter and more energetic at 90 than most people will ever be.
One person’s 65 is not another person’s 65.
There are VERY sharp and capable people north of 65 that we would be worse off for excluding.
There are people younger than 65 that have already exceeded their use-by date.
I think term limits are far more effective in the average sense.
An alternative is a cabability check - an evaluation of mental capability (memory, focus, retention, processing, neurological, etc.) that could be done prior to running as a candidate, or could be invoked if a person’s competence is officially challenged. Evaluators would need to be selected carefully, qualified to do the functional/neurological evaluation, and limited to people with no political positioning, or done by consensus of 3 individuals representing D, R, and Independent parties.
Well things can be changed. Just like how roe v wade was overturned. We can’t keep letting these 80 year olds sit in office for 50 terms. There has to be a way to make it to where younger people can get into office. We should be able to be in congress or the house and have a say in our policies
Just my two cents worth here -
For me the issues for younger people getting into office has to do with leveling the campaign finance laws. There needs to be a level playing field to even get into the game regardless of age limits.
But even before then, we lack an education base for young people to learn how the political world works. I have not seen any courses currently in high school that even begin to touch the subject. I am showing my age, but when I was in high school there were several different political science or government strategies courses.
We also need to bring back true statesmanship in our leadership. Who wants to run for office knowing “law fare” will be used to destroy an opponent.
@caitigrl05 I think the operative function here isn’t “getting younger people” in office, specifically but not letting anyone make a 50-year career of an elected office.
IF we have term limits (say 2 terms in each house, with a maximum of 3 terms cumulatively) we allow people to develop skills and expertise, but limit the length of time anyone can camp in a seat.
That opens up options for younger people, fresher people, more able people, more energetic people, more responsive people, and simply different individuals to be elected.
Essentially it’s not just age that’s the problem.
It’s lack of competence (either because of loss of capability, loss of willingness to work, or just baseline not competent to start with).
It’s also entrenched favors-owed (or blackmail) that ties people’s hands.
That’s not an age thing, but a too-much-time-spent-in-the-swamp-trading-backroom-chits thing. 
@patches 100% correct, on all of that.
Airline pilots currently have a mandatory retirement age of 65. What’s the difference?
FAR Part 121 does not apply to all pilots.
Yes, but Part 121 concerns Airline Scheduled Service. The current retirement age ends the careers of those pilots. It’s okay to end that career but not the career of an elected official? The basis for the mandatory retirement for pilots is the concern that life/death decisions should not be made by someone older than 65. Do politicians not make decisions that directly affect the lives of their constituents up to and including life/death decisions? Maybe you’re saying Part 121 pilots can just change jobs and fly Part 135. Well, I’m not saying that congressmen/women can’t still do other forms of public service after 65. Maybe they can join a school board.
I get what you are saying. It is a valid point
Honestly, they’re just greedy and corrupt. All of them need to be fired
Not sure if age is the entire solution. It is supposed to be a service they are providing but there needs to be some kind of oversite on pay and perks and workdays. A lot more work would get done if they actually had to be there until the job was done (IE budget, laws funding etc.) Also getting the federal government back to their original job of safety and security of the USA as a whole and stop trying to take over states’ sovereignty. Back to basics!
Yes I completely agree. You said it much better than I did!! Something has to change though!
If a representative hits the retirement age set by the federal government, they should NOT be holding office.
Exactly!!!
I agree there should be age limits…but I think 65 is to low, 75 is probably more realistic.
Laws vs common sense. If you’re at the point where you’re so old you can’t stay awake, it’s time to retire.