Two problems with term limits are:

1. Politicians serve out their terms that are limited, and then they sort of play musical chairs and get eleted to something else. It keeps them in office and destroys the idea of getting rid of them after a certain time.

2. For positions like Senator or Congressperson, it takes several years to really understand the job, and to specialize in some area or another and then rise up on committees. My usderstanding in both houses in D.C. is that the real "work horses" are long term representatives who have really learned their subject matter. To me these people protect us from an entrenched bureaucracy. The true "leadership" in both parties are folkd I personally would not like to see out of office. It was a shame, for instance to lose Richard Lugar in the Senate, beacuse he had gained so much knowledge and expertise.

That said, those "show horse" politicians who make a career out of politics and really do nothing, do not deserve what amounts to lifetime positions.

Maybe some kind of "up or out" limitation could be worked out. For example if someone developed expertise in military matters, after a term they have to be on the Armed services committee, and after two they have to move up to Chair or opposition leader on the committee, and/or have to have introduced and passed some kind of meaningful legislation that either reforms something, or changes something for the botter. How this is measured, I have no idea, but the gist of it is to require them to accomplish something or get out.