Cutting entitlements to those in Congress is a drop in the bucket that will never happen because there is no way that those in Congress will vote for cutting their own salaries or perks. And that's on both sides of the aisle.
Term limts is the way to go but there will need to be a grass roots wave of organization to get going in the states as a Constitutional Amendment as once again those in Congress will never vote to limit their own power.
I think in a wave election it could happen. I also think you could get a bill related to public pension & welfare, where part of the deal was to cut out congress's pensions. I'm against low salary for previous reasons stated.
If the 17th amendment were revoked you wouldn't have to deal with Senators. Flipping state houses happens a decent amount and would almost certainly end a Senator's tenure. I'd favor a term limit amendment that repealed the 17th returning sovereignty for the Senate to the state houses and limited consecutive terms in the house - but not lifetime like POTUS. I actually think there are plenty of problems with term limits for POTUS, namely the lame duck last two years (if you think compromise is hard now, watch what happens in 2014 if the R's pick up seats in both houses like last mid term.) But FDR pretty much destroyed any chance to trust the dignity of presidents to step aside on their own, following Washington's noble example
By the way as much as it's decried - outside money is one of the few things that help a challenger unseat an incumbent. Post citizens united - we've seen several "well tenured" pols lose primaries on the R side. Couldn't have happened unless they had support of outside groups.