Author: Joel Fox

The campaign for workers comp reform was only six-plus years ago, yet, as Yogi Berra might say, it looks like déjà vu all over again. Workers comp is an important issue for business again with the threat of workers comp insurance premium increases possibly hitting 30-percent.

The Small Business Action Committee’s first important policy activity after it came into existence was to promote a change in the workers comp system that was crushing businesses. We amassed support from over 20,000 small businesses and a few large ones, as well, in our effort to reduce the burden on business.

Dan Walters gave an excellent recap of the once and future workers comp crisis in his column yesterday.

My comparison of participants in the Boston Tea Party to those who supported a California political advertisement struck home considering the reaction I received from Joe Mathews in Fox and Hounds today, Jerry Brown’s spokesman Clifford Sterling at Calitics, and the guys over at Calbuzz, last week.

The three articles generally complained that the use of the Boston Tea Party analogy does not fit because the action by patriots in 1773 is not akin to funding a political advertisement in 2010. However, they focus on the act. The analogy is about consequences to the actors who speak up to "official" power and can be punished. In that framework, the analogy is extremely apt.

Notice in the responses, everyone ignores a central argument of the ad—the threatening of lawsuits — the menacing use of official power. It is understandable that donors fear exposure when such power is threatened.

The Wall Street Journal’s Stu Woo had it right when he wrote yesterday, "If California resorts to IOUs, it will be the latest humiliation for the cash-strapped state." Key on the word humiliation. In my recent travels, I heard much snickering and disbelief about California’s fiscal situation.

The most intriguing thing about California’s drive to another in a long line of humbling fiscal moments is the timing. Controller John Chiang predicted that if nothing changes California would run out of money in late October.

Right before the November 2 election.

I’m flying back to California today and have finally caught up with all the hard shots and false accusations made against the Small Business Action Committee and me because we started a legal issue advocacy campaign urging Attorney General Jerry Brown to concentrate on bringing jobs to California while not taking positions that discourage job creation.

Many of the reactions to the ad were predictable. Supporters of Brown, who have spent millions on his behalf, argued our ad should not even exist even though it clearly falls within the rules of issue advocacy. Reporters said that donors to the ad should be disclosed even though that is not required, and these same reporters defend not disclosing their sources at times and often for the same reason. More on that later.

Creating a business friendly California is the mission of SBAC. Putting up obstacles to job creation hurts business and we pointed out items in Brown’s record that discourages job growth. The Fair Political Practices Commission, at its most recent hearing, noted that raising issues involving candidates for office is appropriate under issue advocacy.

I’m in Indiana where the political conversation is centered on Republican Governor Mitch Daniels’ interest in a White House run in 2012.  Or is he interested? Daniels has said he is open to the idea, but he has yet to take the kick-off trips to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Over the weekend the press here buzzed about the possibility with Daniels receiving national attention from Fox News and Newsweek. Arnold-like, Daniels rode around for the cameras on a motorcycle in a charity ride that included hundreds of bikes.

Daniels is getting attention for the top government job because Indiana is in relatively good shape compared to other states suffering during the economic downturn. Locals have told me that when Daniels is criticized for the state’s fiscal condition he points out how much better Indiana is doing than California or Illinois.

The Public employee unions have never been shy about in-your-face political activity to defend their turf and make sure they get for their members what they think the members deserve. The onslaught of activity has increased in these difficult economic times.

In San Francisco, a number of public unions filed suit this week to throw a pension reform measure off the ballot. That reform was introduced by the city’s public defender. He was concerned that his budget is being eaten away to cover employees’ pension costs.

SEIU and other public employee members plan to rally in protests against the opening of the movie "The Expendables," because Arnold Schwarzenegger has a bit role in the movie. The unions want to express opposition to the governor’s furlough policies.

As Carla Marinucci reports in the San Francisco Chronicle, a debate has flared among economists on the effects of Meg Whitman’s plan to revive the California economy. A liberal think tank produced a document written by liberal professors calling Whitman’s plan flawed. A conservative economist responded that the plan would jump start the economy.

This back and forth of different economic views reminds me of the famous quote by President Harry Truman who wanted to consult with a one-armed economist. The president was tired of economists advising him, "On the one hand this could happen… On the other hand that …."

The report by UC Berkeley economist Michael Reich that started the brouhaha argued that Whitman’s plan to cut capitol gains taxes would deprive the state of billions of dollars in revenue. In addition, Reich claimed that California is not the unfriendly business climate that Whitman talks about.

The court giveth and the court taketh away.

On Friday, I wrote about a Superior Court decision that removed a phrase from the ballot title of Proposition 25 that said while lowering the two-thirds vote to majority to pass the budget, the measure: "Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes."

Yesterday, an Appellate Court overruled the lower court and put the phrase back into the title, arguing that the voters would not be confused, as the Superior Court judge asserted, that they must vote YES to retain the two-thirds vote.

Outrageous. Unbelievable. Cries of rage and astonishment were heard throughout California and on network news when the Los Angeles Times revealed the salary of Bell city manager Robert Rizzo a few weeks ago.

This weekend the Times continued its focus on the Bell scandal with a new report that Rizzo’s compensation package topped $1.5 million when all benefits were calculated.

This news is so beyond the pale. From screaming indignation, the reaction changes to stunned silence. I am struck speechless.