Congressional term limits are one of those proposals which sound good on its face.
According to Gallup polls, Congress is now at a 17 percent approval rating, and Rasmussen Reports found 74 percent of America wants term limits for Congress to help solve the frustration. 
I get it. Congress is an endless gridlock of greasy palms and broken promises, and it is certainly frustrating to see the same politicians in office every year doing the same bad job. From the quick pitch, congressional term limits seem like a perfect fix. Congresspeople would get a certain amount of time to do their job, and this way, they would be less concerned with reelection and more concerned with policy-making. The old politicians who are getting fat off of lobbyist funds would be kicked out after their service is over, and new, young faces would fill the House and Senate with a youthful vigor and modernity. 
Unfortunately, things are never quite so simple. Term limits, just like any other proposal in Washington, can lead to even more problems down the road. 
The executive branch, both at the state and federal level, is what is most closely associated with term limits. Mississippi, for instance, has a two-term lifetime limit on governorship, and the same goes for the U.S. president, following the ratification of the 22nd Amendment.
Why, then, should the president have term limits and not Congress? Well, the presidential term limit was entirely traditional for the majority of U.S. history. Former President George Washington set an impressive precedent deciding to only serve two terms, and presidents succeeding him, for the most part, did not venture from this precedent. Theodore Roosevelt tried for a third term in 1912 but lost to Woodrow Wilson, yet Teddy’s relative, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, succeeded in winning two extra terms during the stresses of World War II. It was not until 1951, following FDR’s passing, it was codified a U.S. president could serve a maximum of two full terms. For the most part, this is simply a holdover from good old Washington’s example, and presidential term limits are incredibly popular, as reported by Kathleen Weldon with The Huffington Post. 
Congressional term limits, on the other hand, have no precedent in D.C., and the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed it unconstitutional for states to impose term limits in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. Therefore, a new constitutional amendment would need to be ratified for congressional term limits to be instated, and I have already shown how popular a prospect term limits are. However, term limits are, by their very nature, undemocratic and destabilizing, which would not solve our current woes.
Congress is a job. Congresspeople put on their work clothes-suits and ties or skirts and heels-and go to work, just like other Americans. This is not to try and portray Congress as some normal office job, but rather, what I mean to say is Congress is a workplace, preferably with the American electorate as the boss. Like any workplace, new workers are not as efficient as older, more experienced employees, and this carries over to Congress. 
Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert with The Brookings Institution, told Amber Phillips of The Washington Post, “If members are restricted to only serving a few terms, the logic goes, they have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs. If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
Lobbyists, unless also changed by law, are not limited to any amount of time in Washington, and they can spend years honing their expertise and influence over Congress. A novice legislator might be tempted to seek counsel from lobbying groups, hoping to sway Congress to their position, which is exactly what term limits are trying to avoid. The idea of a career politician getting rich off lobbying money is not the most pleasing, but the idea of a novice politician doing the same is not any better. Furthermore, a congressperson who cannot run again can just go join lobbying firms earlier than planned, only increasing the possibility of corruption. 
Alternatively, depending on how well a politician is doing, a voting body might want to keep the politician in power, but the ability is robbed with the addition of term limits. If a genuinely good civil servant comes around with fresh ideas and a mind on policy, the grind of Washington may prevent this civil servant from achieving those goals in a timely manner, and then the politician is forcibly tossed aside for another novice to start the process over once more.The gridlock in Washington will not be solved by tossing endlessly novel faces at Capitol Hill until something is hurriedly and improperly done. Regardless of political orientation, a bill rendered by a politician with six years’ experience will be less solid than one crafted by a long-standing senior legislator. 
Ultimately, term limits rob the American people of the power of their votes. If you do not like the politics of a politician, vote them out. If your civil servant is not serving, vote them out. If you are tired of their lying, their lobbyists or their legislation, vote them out. The term limit placed on Congress is the patience and vigilance of the American people, which is rendered obsolete with codified term limits. A politician owes you nothing, if you are not responsible for their continued employment.