Might I suggest an alternative?
Would not "session limits" be a more appropriate solution to the problem? The problem being defined as: our elected representatives totally lose touch with the wishes and needs of their constituents. Thereby, they create legislation which is more in their self-interest -- and the interest of the Washington establishment -- than of their constituents.
I'd submit that the current fundamental political conflict is not so much Republican vs Democrat or even liberal vs conservative...but Washington vs the rest of us.
It can be reasonably argued that term limits would actually serve to limit the choice of the voters -- an arbitrary limit effectively forbids them from keeping a representative they might wish to keep. And, demonstrably, term limits would tend to shift power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy -- parties who are unelected and, thus, unaccountable. Finally, if the Founding Fathers didn't believe there was a need for term limits, I'm inclined to trust their judgment.
Session limits, however, would work to solve the problem as I've defined it. Given six months to do the nation's business, the representative is a.) free to spend half the year among his constituents, hopefully becoming "one with them" again, and b.) removed from the toxic influences of the Washington establishment -- the lobbyists, the bureaucracy, the social circle, etc. -- for half the year.
In other words, the representative remains a primary resident of his district -- and not a denizen of Washington. Maintaining a primary year-round residence in Washington even becomes of questionable utility.
Would a six-month session limit harm the conduct of the republic's business? True, it might bring an end to the 3-day work week that Congress seems to favor. But if, due to the pressure of time, some legislation doesn't get done....well, wouldn't that actually be a beneficial by-product of session limits?
Note that this proposal is also predicated on the model of the states. In most states, the legislatures conduct their business within specified time limits -- and nobody makes a career out of being solely a state legislator.
In sum, I believe our problem is not the number of years that a representative spends in office, it's the amount of time he annually spends in Washington -- with Washingtonians.
There are at least a few reasons that I think term limits would help, IMHO. The longer these politicians stay in any government, the greater potential there is for them to become corrupt. It decreases the need for them to "go along to get along." It also decreases the need to "bring home the bacon."
As for shifting power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy, that was needed before the computer when all these laws, regulations and rules were on paper. With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated.
P.S. I don't think session limits in Congress are a bad idea for regular business.