Questionable Questionnaires

   Surveys are wonderful things as a way to gather public opinions.
   But.
   
   Too often, surveys sent out by politicians consist of loaded questions, designed to elicit responses favorable to positions the sender already has.
   The results can then be used as "support" for the politician  to continue his or her fight for or against a particular issue.
   And, yes, both sides do it, as well as special interest groups.
   There are, of course, reputable polling organizations that carefully frame their questions to remain neutral, and they use careful phrasing as they collect responses, in order to increase the statistical validity of the survey.
   Others, however, don't care. They want only answers that bolster their established positions. Or the questions are so simplistic as to be unanswerable with a straight yes or no.
   Here are some examples, taken from a survey sent out by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, to his constituents:

   "Should the U.S. strengthen our current border security policy?"
   Why does it need strengthening? This question plays to the preconceived notion that the country is being overrun with illegal immigrants.

   "Should the U.S. continue to fund Planned Parenthood?"
   Again, this is based on the current flap over abortions. The reality is that Planned Parenthood counsels people on health and birth issues, but does not provide abortion services.

   "Should there be more or less privatization of veterans' healthcare?"
   What is meant by "privatization"?

   "Do you support concealed carry reciprocity for gun owners?"
   What is meant by "reciprocity"? The question implies that carrying a concealed weapon is a good thing.

   "Do you believe the U.S. defense budget should be increased or decreased?"
   A negative response suggests the reader is against defense spending.

   "Do you believe the government should cut its spending to balance its budget?"
   The calls for a knowledge of national economics that many constituents may not have, and is based on the premise that federal budgets should be balanced. Reality check: State budgets must be balanced every year. This is not true for federal budgets. Or, as former Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter." And as Nobel economist Paul Krugman put it, "A company is not a country."

   And finally, "Should the federal government take action to combat climate change?"
   Considering the widespread propaganda campaign by many conservative politicians who insist that climate change does not exist, this could easily elicit a "no" answer. Reality check: Those of a certain age can remember ice skating on local ponds in winter, and know they can't do that anymore. They don't need reams of scientific data to tell them the climate has changed. And they also know the difference between climate and weather, unlike some TV commentators.