In 2005, I wrote in a document titled, Creating a Business Friendly California, meant to energize the business community: "To achieve a business friendly California, the business community must speak directly to the voters.  We must educate voters on issues of the economy, business, regulations, and taxes. It's not enough to educate the elected policy makers. Voters are the policy makers, themselves, when they vote on initiatives.  We have to show them that a business friendly California is good for everybody."

Finally, such an effort is coming about thanks to the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber issued a report the end of last month on California's economic troubles and offered suggestions on how to turn around our economy. You can find the full report here.

The Chamber plans to back up this report with a media campaign to get the word out along the lines of my proposal from years ago.

You remember the fairy tale ... the little girl visits her grandmother but notices something strange about her ... "What big teeth you have, grandmother."

A Big Bad Wolf has dressed up as Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother so as to catch her by surprise and devour her.

The backers of Proposition 27 play the Big Bad Wolf in a modern day version of the tale. The politicians behind Prop 27 want to devour the poor voters who think it's a good idea to remove legislators from the obvious self-interest of drawing their own legislative districts.

Jerry Brown released his first official campaign television ad and it contains a decidedly Republican theme. Following a revisit of his governorship by an announcer, Brown comes on the screen to tell voters three points of his platform: We must live within our means; power must move to the local level; and no new taxes without voter approval.

Of course, there are many Republicans who want no new taxes -- period! But, generally, for years Republicans have emphasized the points expressed by Brown.

However, Brown adopting these themes raises some questions in the current political environment.

While last night's senate debate between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina covered a number of issues, it also affirmed what we have been saying all along - that jobs is issue number one.

California stuck with over 12% unemployment for what seems an eternity must unlock the formula to create more jobs. Both candidates hit the job issue hard during the debate.

Boxer excoriated Fiorina for sending 30,000 jobs overseas when she headed Hewlett-Packard. Fiorina responded that she made tough executive decisions and cut some jobs to save others.

Tonight's debate between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina will set the race for California's United States Senate seat off in a new direction. By all accounts the race is even. It feels even ... if I can justifiably claim that one can get those feelings about political races after hanging around politics for a long time.

That means what happens starting at 7 p.m. tonight at St. Mary's College in Moraga could be a very important step in deciding California's next senator. A superior performance or a sub-par one likely would be a game changer.

Will Fiorina look inexperienced next to the three-term senator? Will Boxer appear out-of-touch and arrogant, as her opponents have charged in the past? Any mistakes, superior ability, or personality traits could set an impression with observers and allow one of the candidates to build momentum.

The scheduled votes Tuesday on two disparate budget plans for California -- one put forth by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the other by legislative Democrats -- are fine as far as they go but they do not go far enough. There should be votes on many possible budget plans.

Tuesday's exercise is designed to consider two different ways to look at spending plans for the state government and to take a measure of where those plans stand with legislators. The outcomes of the votes are obvious.

The Republicans will support the Schwarzenegger plan built around extensive budget cuts to close the $19-billion state deficit; the Democrats will stand behind their own plan, which features far fewer cuts.

Los Angeles Times business page columnist, Michael Hiltzik, and I often disagree.

I'll never understand why the Times insists on business columnists who spend a great deal of time criticizing the business community, as they have over recent years. In my view, working toward a more business friendly state would lead California out of its perennial doldrums. Saying that, however, I think Hiltzik's latest column hits on a subject that can help the state and country recover.

Hiltzik criticizes corporations from sitting on piles of cash. He reports that "operating earnings of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index jumped 38.4% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier, according to Thomson Reuters, and companies are sitting on an estimated $1.8 trillion in cash ..."

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.