So it looks like 50 senators are 65 and older. Literally half of them are retirement age or older.

126 of the 439 members of the 118th congress are over 65. 65 more are “retirement eligible” from 60-64.

So a third of our House sees geriatric doctors and half of our Senate should be retired.

16 senators should probably start considering nursing homes.

That said, being old isn’t itself a problem. Remember, Ben Franklin was in his 80s during the Constitutional convention. There is a lot of wisdom and experience that comes with age. My parents and in-laws for example are in that 60-65 range and they incredibly sharp and have lots of experience and a perspective that you can only get with age. But they are often out of touch with the plight of my generation and the generations behind me, don’t have a great handle on modern life from the lense of a 30 year old. But obviously they are empathetic and willing to seek to understand. But I’d say their life experiences are pretty different from your average Congress member who are (generationally) wealthy and have been in politics since their parents were.

I think age + other things like being rich AF, coming from a wealthy and powerful family, being in office for decades, and being in politics in general too long.

Neither party is incentivized to address this problem because seniority gets you the primo spots on committees andincumbents win reelection over 95% of the time. So, naturally you aren’t going to oust an old timer for a new young one until you absolutely have to because you’ll lose your key committees or possibly have a seat flip. Even constituents enjoy the benefits of the seniority of their rep so voters don’t necessarily want to vote them out either.

And let’s be clear, if the people of Grassleys state wanted him out, he’d be out.