They're the exception not the rule. With incumbents getting reelected at rates of ninety percent or better, do you really want more of the Bobby Byrd and John Murtha types. Twelve years in each house is plenty.
As opposed to the need for relying upon more experienced staffers we don't elect to explain how things work?
Let them stick to the Constitution. The less laws they make the better. They can start repealing stupid laws.
This is just not true. With term limits, it takes LESS money to buy a candidate, run him, and offer him a cushy job on the back side up front. It also increases the likelihood for a chain of complete unknowns running for office with little identifiable record by which to qualify their integrity under pressure.
That assumes they're all bought, and that they have no record as local and state politicians.
"As for shifting power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy, that was needed before the computer when all these laws, regulations and rules were on paper. With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated."
Please explain the basis for this claim.
Information technology greatly reduces the need for staff devoted to researching printed paper copies of anything, IMHO.
Actually, from what I've seen, California politicians are now more "bought" than ever, in part because they need a job after their terms. More importantly, very few have the faintest idea what they are doing. Yes, we got rid of Willie Brown, but we termed out the likes of McClintock, Richardson, Haynes, and Kopp (a Dem, but an honest man). In only one of those cases did the pol move up and he would have done so anyway.
Term limits have not worked in California; they made things worse. Willie Brown may have been a crook, but at least he was competent. This crew is not only crooked, but downright dangerous.