Term limits enable buying a new pet legislator right away because it forestalls any of them developing a good reputation (true, it does the same thing for those with bad reputations too, but these tend to be self-correcting). Another big part of the problem is that sub-committee votes and debates aren't as secret as they used to be. Today's legislators are no longer able to vote against something which they feel to be plainly unreasonable or unworkable because they're overly subjected to the microscopes wielded by special interest groups. These groups get their pet agendas put through at the expense of reasonable, sane, compromises and overall, general long term policies which benefit the greater good. The initiave process has been prostitued in the same way by the special interest groups and their Money. Read this:

[www.amazon.com]

He doesn't have a lot of good to say about the California legislative and political "system" (and I live here in it).

I'm voting no on 1A because it doesn't solve the problem, only prolongs it. What is needed is a J.P. Morgan-like solution: hold their feet in the fire until they make a descision. Whenever there's a "budget impasse" which persists past the fiscal year deadline, stop the Legislature's pay and fringe benefits for the duration, with no possibility of awarding themselves a make-whole for the loss--perhaps even proscribe pay raises for the 12 calendar months after the date the budget is finally passed. After all, we're paying them to legislate. You and I aren't paid if we don't do our jobs; neither should they be paid if they don't do theirs. You'd have to include the executive branch in this too (Governor and Lt. Gov.) because it's also part of the legislative process. Both branches must do their jobs in order to pass a budget.