Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Another Year Older, Another Year Wiser?
After his death on Monday, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg was remembered as a dependable liberal advocate throughout his five terms in the Senate. But until early this year he was considering a sixth term, which could have meant serving until he was almost 97. Should there be an age limit for the House and Senate?
* senator = 상원 의원/ advocate = 옹호자, 지지자/ age limit = 연령 제한; 정년

 상하 의원에 연령 제한이 있어야만 하나요?

1. Open Elections Can Ease the Way Out
Primary challenges should be made and tolerated, with open elections. And voters shouldn't see "senator" as a lifetime job.
 
2. A Few Retirements Would Be Nice
The real question is not how old the Senate is, but how young it is not.
 
3. Stepping Down Is Hard to Do
In a body whose name is derived from the Latin adjective for “old,” the idea of encouraging the retirement of members well beyond their prime has never caught on.
 
4. Age Is Not the Issue
Today’s partisan bickering does not serve the people, and that should be the guidepost on whether voters should send their elected representatives packing, not their age.


Sample Essay

A Few Retirements Would Be Nice

Following the death this week of Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, 22 of our remaining senators are between the ages of 70 and 79. However, unless they are already ill, these seniors have all the demographic markers to be good, older workers: they have excellent medical insurance and they are wealthy, white and well educated. What’s more, their active lives should keep them intellectually sharp.

The death of an older senator is now rare: 15 died in the 1960s, 28 in the 1940s and 29 between 1900 and 1910. However, since 1980, only 13 senators have died in office. Surprisingly, five were 61 or younger, well below retirement age: two died accidentally, one committed suicide, and two had sudden cardiovascular events.

Although the passing of an old guard liberal represents a crisis for the Democratic leader Harry Reid, it may represent an opportunity for the hidebound Senate. Unplanned events can force a state party to reshuffle and refresh its candidates, allowing someone different to jump the queue of carefully groomed party stalwarts. When Edward Kennedy died, Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory over Martha Coakley caused Massachusetts Democrats to look for a new face, Elizabeth Warren.

Unless they step aside, senators debilitated by age are likely to be returned to the chamber out of deference or as placeholders. Before resigning at 100, Strom Thurmond often appeared not to participate in sessions he chaired. Robert Byrd also suffered a visible decline prior to his death at 92. Both senators retained seniority and power that no longer matched their abilities or vigor. How influential does a senator’s unelected staff or spouse become in such a situation? What happens to the work of the nation when senior members of powerful committees are unable to work with colleagues?

But perhaps the real question is not how old the Senate is, but how young it is not. If 37 senators are older than 65, only 12 senators are younger than 50. Demographically, the middle-aged, old and elderly are governing a nation entirely unlike the one they were formed by and educated in. Our most urgent policy questions – education, health care, immigration, communications technology, climate change, social security, long-term care for disabled veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq – are about what country the young will inherit.

Isn’t this why we could use some retirements in the Senate?