First, would term limits give control of government to bureaucrats that are not elected, but serve their entire career with the government?
Secondly, I’ve seen some suggestions to limit total time served in elective office to a combined 16 years. Had this been the law in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been prohibited from seeking the presidency as he had already served 6 years as Senator from California and 8 years as Vice-President under Eisenhower, thus he had already 14 total years in elective office. Just a thought for consideration.
It would sure push things that way, because the liege-slatterns won't be as familiar the ins and outs of agency connivances. Of course, that's not always a bad thing.
Re total time, who would have the wisdom to deny Henry Clay, Patrick Henry, or Jesse Helms on the strength of too much time in office, much less Antonin Scalia, Story, Fuller, or Taney? To allow that much latitude for whimsy is to engage in a poor understanding of history.
I’d just keep it to similar offices - 16 years as any kind of state or federal judicial office (okay to have 16 years in each), 16 years in Congress (both houses) or the legislature (both houses again), but 16 in the state legislature and another 16 in Congress okay, etc.
The only appointive office I’d hit with term limits would be judicial. Federal judges are incredibly arrogant and, as Supreme Court justices, can do incredible damage. So term limits for judges is pretty much damage control.
I could care less if some bureaucrat has a career - most of them are working stiffs like us, and expertise is pretty important for many. You can risk your kids’ lives on some water quality guy with only eight years experience - I’d rather have my water quality guy have twenty years experience.