This is one of those ask for 100 so you can negotiate down to 50 kind of things isn't it? Or just a pretend attempt to look good when it's obviously rejected.
I don't disagree with most of these. Would get rid of a ton of the seemingly parasitic portions of the US government. Aggressive term limits like that would inherently force change very quickly. I've discussed that with a very politically involved friend (far left works in DC). His argument was always along the lines of things move slow so career politician's are needed to actually enact change. If its forced to speed up though, maybe that's good? I'm not really sure honestly. One charismatic populist/small group of charismatic populist could make a huge amount of change in a short span of time. Positive or negative. I do think they should be compensated for their terms at a pretty high level though, say 200k a year with the same benefits a basic federal worker gets. With the stipulation that they can't trade or earn from a related secondary source of income while in office. We want them to be elite thinkers/doers so we should pay them that way. I really like 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. I appreciate how organized and detailed you were. Sorry my response is kinda scatterbrained.
Good job friend