You'll notice in this issue of Capitol Action Weekly two atypical letters -- one that comments on the political correctness of a certain word used in last week's Capitol Action, and one addressing a topic not discussed in CAW. I chose to use both letters because they are each unique in their own ways -- and bring valuable discussion to this forum.

I'd like to use this opportunity to remind you that I, in fact, am not responsible for writing the Capitol Action each week. As much as I'd like to take credit for it -- and appreciate all the great feedback I get -- I can't; I'm the editor who brings the newsletter together. Our extraordinary Sacramento-based staff is the real force behind each week's political commentary. (You'll understand why I mention this when you read the first letter in this week's issue.)

I hope you are continuing to enjoy CAW each week. Keep that feedback coming; I always love to hear from you!

- Gabe

*************************** ADVERTISEMENT *************************** Looking for an energetic, Web-savvy writer/editor/designer who's eager to put his talents to work for YOU? Look no further than Gabe Anderson, a soon-to-be graduate of Vassar College. Resume is available online: http://www.gabeanderson.com/resume *********************************************************************

This week, in the first major change to the system since the original reforms were adopted, a Senate committee will consider a proposal backed by organized labor to boost workers' benefits by $1.75 billion.

The proposal has received virtually no attention in the mainstream media. But behind the scenes in the Capitol, this plan is one of the hottest issues of the year for employers and the insurers who sell "work comp" coverage to companies.

Workers compensation insurance, required by law, is purchased by companies to protect their employees. In 1992, before the changes were approved, the system was marked by fraud and waste, in part because of inflated and inaccurate claims engineered by rogue doctors and lawyers.

Then, the amount of premiums paid for workers compensation coverage totaled about $10 billion a year. Today, that total is about $6.5 billion annually, a remarkable shrinkage that reflects the fierce competition that has occurred in the industry.

The decrease is a direct reflection of the repeal of the so-called "minimum-rate law," a sort of financial cushion that had been in place for decades that assured even the smallest work comp companies of maintaining a profit.

But when that law was repealed, the cushion was removed. Cut-throat competition ensued, and the level of premiums steadily declined as companies battled for business in the marketplace.

Union groups have long contended that the work comp "reforms" benefitted employers by providing cheaper coverage and insurers by providing scaled-down benefits. But with former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson -- who championed the changes -- in power, there appeared little chance to make any changes.

But now Democrat Gray Davis, who won his election last November with strong backing from organized labor, is in the governor's office and labor sees its chance to push through an increase in benefits.

Insurers and employers see this as a direct attack on their pocketbooks, and they are mounting a major lobbying effort to head it off.

They acknowledge that their task is difficult, indeed. Labor is easily Davis' most powerful, best organized constituency. Labor groups want something in return from Davis for going all out on his behalf last year.

And they are likely to get it.

In today's politically correct environment it is important that we use caution in the choice of our words. I subscribed to your newsletter because I am a transplanted Californian living in Texas now, yet still registered to vote in Sacramento. I respect and admire your work very much, seeing how you find the time to do all this work amidst all your other responsibilities. It is obvious your a gifted student with a natural ability to succeed.

I'm writing you today to inform you that it is not acceptable to people of Spanish decent to be referred to as Latinos. It would be more correct to say that we are Hispanic. In all actuality a Latin person would include those from Italy as well since their language is also derived from Latin.

- Stbarbara@aol.com Texas

This is a difficult issue, and one not easily resolved. What is politically correct one year is not fashionable the next.

For example, in the 1960s and 1970s the term "Negro" could still be found in newspaper copy, even though the word was objectionable to many of African descent. Later the most commonly used term was "Black," then "African-American" with a hyphen. Today, it is "African American" without the hyphen. What will it be tomorrow?

"Whites" have been described as "Anglo-Saxon" and "Caucasian", even though many have no connection racially or historically to Saxony in Germany or the Caucasus mountains in southern Russia.

In the 1960s, a common term for young Hispanics was "chicano" -- a term that later carried a pejorative. The widely used term "Mexican-American" was attacked -- rightly -- as inaccurate because many Hispanic people hailed from many other countries in Latin America. People of Mexican descent disliked "Hispanic," because to them the word carried an objectionable connection to Spain. However, the term "Latino," which to Capitol Action Weekly appears to be at least broadly accurate, is disliked by many for precisely the reasons you mention.

Ultimately, CAW uses "Latino" and "Hispanic" interchangeably, acknowledging the complete accuracy of neither. Your point is well taken and you stated the problem well. But what's the answer?

- Capitol Action Staff

To the Editor,

Two weeks ago, the California High Speed Rail Authority held its Southern California regional meeting in downtown San Diego. The HSRA is a nine-member state agency that was created by Governor Wilson and the legislature to develop a high-speed train system for California.

A bond act to fund the system is planned for the November 2000 ballot. Two systems are being proposed: Very High Speed Rail (VHSR) for travel up to 200 MPH on new tracks and High Speed Rail (HSR) for travel up to 100 MPH using existing corridors. The estimated capital cost of VHSR is $23.3 billion for steel wheel/steel rail technology and $31.6 billion for a magnetic levitation (or Maglev) system.

HSR service would be accomplished by increasing the speed along existing inter-city rail corridors to 100 MPH. Consultants for the HSRA indicate that will require certain yet unspecified "upgrades" to the rail lines currently used by Amtrak.

According to the HSRA, the goal of VHSR and HSR is seamless travel in California that reduces the need for vehicles. To accomplish that, the HSRA has proposed linking both HSR systems to mass transit. But, here's where the logic of this plan may fail. We don't have efficient, interconnected mass transit in the cities and regions serving the proposed stations. The fastest trains in the world won't help us get vehicles off the freeways unless and until mass transit is more convenient and pervasive.

We already have the ability to get to downtown L.A., LAX, Sacramento, Riverside and various points in-between via Amtrak or airline travel. Southwest Airlines is like an air-borne Greyhound Bus in terms of cost and convenience. Before funding new ways to travel to destinations we can already reach for a reasonable price, we should be spending more time and money figuring out how to travel around our own region without having to use a car. The state should improve commuter rail systems before spending another dime on redundant intrastate travel.

Additional information about the HSRA and its work can be obtained online at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.

- Steven Aceti Encinitas, CA

Stay up-to-date on Legislative contact information. Order the newest edition of "the little red book" today! Place your secure online order through our Web site: http://www.capenq.com/order. NOW SHIPPING!

*** Legislators and U.S. Congress on CD-ROM ***

You can now have access to all the info in our print publications on CD-ROM, complete with regular updates via the Web or disk! More on the Legislative CD here: http://www.capenq.com/brochure/legcd.html. More on the Congress CD here: http://www.capenq.com/brochure/congcd.html. Both CDs begin shipping in May. Place your order TODAY!

*** Discounted Rate for RAND California Subscription ***

RAND California, a subscription-based service on California economic and public policy issues, has partnered with Capitol Enquiry to bring you a discounted subscription rate. More information on RAND is available here: http://ca.rand.org/about.html. To subscribe to RAND, visit this page: http://ca.rand.org/subscribe.capenq.html.

*** Committee Rosters Now Online ***

You asked for it, you got it! The current listings for both Assembly and Senate committees are now available through our Web site. Point your browser to http://www.capenq.com/gov/info.html for links to the rosters.

*** Current Legislative Roster Available on Web Site ***

Looking for the current roster of the Assembly or Senate? Head on over to http://www.capenq.com/gov/info.html for links to the current lists -- complete with district, member name, party, room and phone number.

*** Wall Map Options ***

Looking for a poster-size map of California Legislative districts? We currently offer two types of maps. The first style is a full-color map with photos around the edge ($16.95). The other option is a blue and white line map of either the Senate, Assembly or Congress ($35 each or $50 each for laminated). Contact mailto:info@capenq.com for more information, or mailto:orders@capenq.com to place your order.