GUEST POST from DON – Cognitive Decline

COGNITIVE DECLINE

We should be concerned about having leaders with cognitive decline.  No duh!  We’ve had a few during my lifetime.

OPTION A:  RETIREMENT AGE.

Part 1:  I am a proponent of limiting the age at which elected AND appointed officials may continue to serve.  For me it is not an issue of whether that person has physical or cognitive decline, it is that no one 80 or older should be serving in office, at any level of government.  They should go home and spend what time they have left on earth with their families and friends.  They also should not be allowed to be advisors or lobbyists.  Go HOME!  You’ve served, now retire.  

That means that any person, elected or appointed, who reaches their 80th birthday should be required to retire.  I trust 80 year olds.  I know several brilliant ones.  I also know that the risk of mental or physical decline increases rapidly with age.  I never want to see an elected 111 year old in the Senate.  Sadly, a case-by-case scenario would allow another like Biden, and now we are left wondering if he even knew that his name was granting pardons in his last month in office.  Doubtful he can now tell us who was pardoned without help.  He’s not the first president who developed dementia while in office (although, I believe he already had it the day he was elected…I recognized signs).  A recent Axios-Ipsos poll says that 81% of Americans favor an age limit.  Unfortunately the poll was too generic with no age suggested.  So, do Americans favor politicians retire at age 65 or age 105?

This, which I think is sensible, is only one of several valuable ideas I have heard recently.

Part 2: I have heard some suggest that all government officials, beginning at age 70 should have required annual physical and mental exams by a board of 3-5 doctors.  Standardized physical and mental tests and the results should be published.  One state legislator last year went to a nursing home while in office and no one knew.  He just stopped showing up.  If the individual “fails” either of the exams he or she cannot run for office again, or must resign on the next anniversary of his appointment.

Part 3:  Some suggest that any official who displays clear symptoms of decline (example, falling repeatedly, arrested for multiple DUIs, or making poor decisions not related to their job), no matter the age, should be evaluated prior to the next election season.  Why are we allowing people to continue in important jobs they COULD NOT keep if it were in a business environment?  We NEED people who have all their marbles, and clearly, not all presently do.  

OPTION B:  SERVICE LIMITS.*

*(Most have the wrong idea about federal term limits.  They think short limits would solve problems.  However, the error is that short term limits will make government worse.  Then we would have people who don’t know anything relying on staff, who we didn’t elect, who know too much.  Michigan passed term limits, and the result was each set of new legislators had no knowledge of past failures and difficult decisions were kicked down the road.  It doubled the power of the administrative branch.  Don’t do it!!!  Service limits is far better.)

Some see “retire by” dates as ageism.  So, here’s a workable alternative: Service Limits.  What I mean is that the cumulative number of years any INDIVIDUAL serves in federal government should be limited.  40 years seems like an appropriate number.  

Example:  So, if Mizza Jonee (not a real person) serves as a federal legislator for 24 years and two years later is appointed as an ambassador to Tanzania for 10 years, then he could only serve 6 more years either as an appointed or elected official in the federal government before being “serviced out.”  

Example 2:  If a Representative serves 11 two-year terms (22 years), then runs for Senator and serves 3 six-year terms (18 years).  She has used up her time limit.  She can’t run again, can’t serve as a Cabinet Member, can’t become a lobbyist, and can’t be appointed to any federal position.  Go home!  Enjoy domestic life or a hobby.

Of the two, I prefer a retirement age.  One party can’t claim “politics” as the reason for the end of a person’s federal tenure (because the political party believes THIS TIME the 7 years Zippy spent as sub-ambassador shouldn’t count).

NO INVESTMENTS

No elected Federal member (Congress and President) should be allowed to make personal investment decisions while in office.  Let’s expand that to close family members, too.  All investments have to be left 100% in the hands of a third party and the official may not make any recommendations.  In fact, no contact should be allowed between the official and his or her investment agent.

Remove the risk of people voting merely to line their own pockets.  Its a bad idea no matter what party they belong to.  If the judge hearing your case would make a profit once the other side won, you wouldn’t want that judge hearing your case.  Bad justice and bad laws.

DEFICITS

The US Government has been spending more that it takes in for decades.  During a 2011 interview Warren Buffet said, “I could end the deficit [spending] in five minutes, You just pass a law that says that any time there’s a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”

Definitely something worth thinking about, eh?  However a law wouldn’t help, they could merely re-write it.  It would have to be an amendment to the Constitution.  I think most states (except California) would pass it.

Copyright 2025 Donald Whelpley

[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]

See more GUEST POSTS from Don!