As our nation has aged, so, too, has our Congress, perhaps even more acutely. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report found that the 110th Congress that year was the oldest of any Congress in U.S. history. The Congress currently in session today broke even that record. The average age of senators at the beginning of this 111th Congress was 62.7 years. By comparison, the average age in the first Congress more than  200 years ago was a mere 47.

Clearly, longevity and the miracles of modern medicine explain away these differentials. Yet a closer look at the age breakdowns reveal a heavy tilt in the upper chamber towards those entering or currently in the eighth decade of their lives.

As of last week, four sitting U.S. senators were currently in their 80s, and 22 are in their 70s. One senator — the once indefatigable Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia passed away yesterday at the ripe old age of 92. Even at that tender age, Mr. Byrd did not reach the pinnacle of my old boss and mentor. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was 100 years old when he left the Senate.

But is that a good thing? Is our nation better off because individual lawmakers tried to outlast one another and die in their jobs?

We are the recipients of the policies these “elders” enact are entitled to their personal and vested involvement.

Mr. Reagan quipped, "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."

Unfortunately, I’m still worrying. Worrying that our oldest lawmakers are more consumed with the trappings of the office they hold than the work they provide, leaving the dirty work to faceless staff members who are neither elected nor directly accountable for their actions.