Your imaginary party is loaded with inconsistencies and is simplistic. #1, "We won't cut benefits for any citizens" conflicts with #2, "Government cost cuts will be swift and deep to afford the above benefits." This ignores the fact that, as one economist calls it, the government is an insurance company with an army. Most federal spending is concentrated in the programs that you don't want to cut, while mandating deep cus in total spending. You can't have both.
$80,000 a year isn't much money to attract qualified Senators, unless you want them taking graft or only want independently wealthy Senators.
Mandating a 4-year term limit means that Senators will have little experience in the area they are assigned in committees. We already have term limits. They are called elections.
There is no need for a balanced budget. There are conditions that require deficits, such as wars and recessions, where spending helps right the economy.
Whether a drug is legal or not should be up to the States and not imposed upon by the federal government.
Saying that "Gun control was already addressed by the second amendment, so it's not an agenda item," says nothing. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The widespread legal and judicial interpretation is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed, to form a militia. That has nothing to do with individual rights to own pistols.
I don't even know what, "tax breaks are no more and percentage of income is fair," means.
