@Big Al
become current lobbyists. Do you really want to inflate the number of ex representatives lobbying congress?

they're not the first to introduce it, so likely it will go nowhere like the others. But it doesn't affect pay, which is generous at an average of $174k per year, i.e., solidly in the 1% range (I think, I didn't check). So for instance, someone like AOC can serve just one term, get paid about $350K for two years and get a small pension when she's eligible (unless she ends up getting elected again and again, then she'd get a large pension.) Not to mention all the opportunities she'd have after her two years. Those who serve 20 years or more in Congress and Senate end up with pensions well past 100K after having made 1% salaries for those years.

Basically it would do this:

"Amends the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) to exclude Members of Congress, except the Vice President, from further CSRS and FERS retirement coverage."

If we maintained this system of career politicians, which I'm strongly against, then I could see keeping them tied to the CSRS/FERS, but with term limits, I don't see the need, although there should be consideration of some kind of counter balance to the interruption of careers, etc. while serving. But then again, we don't do that with those serving in the National Guard, other then safeguarding their employment for when they return from active duty.

The problem is, they're not proposing term limits along with it. So as usual with our unrepresentatives, it doesn't come close to addressing the real "problem" of career politicians, which they claim as the primary goal. Not to mention all the other problems.
It's just bluster.

I'm strongly in favor of term limits, but much more than that and unless we do it all at once, I'm not sure what good any of it would do.

@Big Al . I am sure there is some variation, but this is in the ballpark of what I have read before:

What is the 2018 Cutoff to be a One-Percent Earner?

See our one percent in America article, we’d argue that net worth is a more suitable measure of the one percent. However, recognizing that a definition change is an uphill battle we did the math!

To reach the 1% in 2018 required an individual income of $300,577. Around 1,738,742 individuals made a 1% – or greater – income in full-year 2017.

they're not the first to introduce it, so likely it will go nowhere like the others. But it doesn't affect pay, which is generous at an average of $174k per year, i.e., solidly in the 1% range (I think, I didn't check). So for instance, someone like AOC can serve just one term, get paid about $350K for two years and get a small pension when she's eligible (unless she ends up getting elected again and again, then she'd get a large pension.) Not to mention all the opportunities she'd have after her two years. Those who serve 20 years or more in Congress and Senate end up with pensions well past 100K after having made 1% salaries for those years.

Basically it would do this:

"Amends the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) to exclude Members of Congress, except the Vice President, from further CSRS and FERS retirement coverage."

If we maintained this system of career politicians, which I'm strongly against, then I could see keeping them tied to the CSRS/FERS, but with term limits, I don't see the need, although there should be consideration of some kind of counter balance to the interruption of careers, etc. while serving. But then again, we don't do that with those serving in the National Guard, other then safeguarding their employment for when they return from active duty.

The problem is, they're not proposing term limits along with it. So as usual with our unrepresentatives, it doesn't come close to addressing the real "problem" of career politicians, which they claim as the primary goal. Not to mention all the other problems.
It's just bluster.

I'm strongly in favor of term limits, but much more than that and unless we do it all at once, I'm not sure what good any of it would do.