Designing questions for a public policy survey is an art form. Select one wrong word, and your results can be skewed. Often, they are--and when that happens hopefully it's a mistake and not some nefarious attempt to slant the results toward a desired end.

USC and the Los Angeles Times conducted a poll on Jerry Brown's proposal to increase taxes. The poll found that a majority backs the proposal, although support has dropped in recent weeks. However, the question is worded in such a way that it's surprising 90% of people don't approve of it. Here's what the respondents were asked:

As you may know, the state faces a 16 billion dollar budget deficit, higher than the 9 billion dollar deficit initially projected earlier this year. Governor Brown recently proposed a new plan to close the budget deficit through a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. The plan would make cuts in funding for hospitals, nursing homes, home care for the elderly and disabled, and welfare and child care. The plan also would reduce the workweek for state employees. Now I'm going to read you an initiative to raise revenues that Governor Brown has proposed to help close the budget deficit. If voters reject these tax increases, there will be major cuts to K through 12 and higher education. After I read it, please tell me whether you favor or oppose it.

Increase the state sales tax by one-quarter of a cent for four years and increase the state income tax rate for people earning more than 250,000 dollars a year for seven years, gradually increasing the rate for higher incomes, with a three percentage point increase on those earning more than 500,000 dollars a year. As much as 7 billion dollars a year would come from these new taxes.

What's with all the qualifications? Can't it ask, "Do you support tax increases to close the budget gap?" Instead, it's, "if we don't increase taxes, hospitals and nursing home funding will be cut. Do you support tax increases now?" 

Well, of course many people are going to say yes when it's worded like that.

The LA Times wants you to know that Mitt Romney is too rich and you should vote for the other guy.

That was the underlying theme of the progressive newspaper's hit piece, "Ann Romney and dressage: A pricey private world", in which it devoted 1,300 words to Ann Romney's expensive hobby.

The Times dug up an old lawsuit that Romney is no longer a party to, which involved a dispute regarding horse she had owned.  In 2010 she was deposed in a "stuffy Simi Valley office building" and discussed how she kept her horse at a Moorpark Ranch, and how riding it helps her cope with MS.

The only reason the Times allocated resources to write this lengthy story and send a photographer to Moorpark to snap photos of the ranch, is to paint the Mitt Romney as a rich, out-of-touch, elite snob who cares little for working people. He's nothing like you, so you should vote for Obama.

As John Nolte points out, the Times devoted 1,300 more words to Ann Romney's horse than it has to the bribery accusation Jeremiah Wright made against President Obama's campaign, and it still refuses to publish a video tape it has of the president praising a man with close ties to terrorism.

Liberal media bias doesn't have to be blatant lies about Republicans. It can be subtle jabs made in concert with overt Democratic attacks on perceived Republican weak points while simultaneously ignoring anything that's bad for their party.

Americans tend to write off the machinations of foreign dictator types as just examples of how every country but America functions. When the recently reelected Vladimir Putin cracked down on his political opposition by drastically increasing fines for taking part in unlicensed protests, it's obvious to us that Putin is corrupt and is using the power of the state to silence his critics.

We seldom stop to think that politicians in our own country not only have the same means available to them, but they've used them. (Unless of course, a Republican resorted to dirty tricks, as Richard Nixon did. Then we never hear the end of it.)

Earlier this year, Tea Party groups across the country received letters from the IRS demanding that they deAmericans tend to write off the machinations of foreign dictator types as just examples of how every country but America functions. When the recently reelected Vladimir Putin cracked down on his political opposition by drastically increasing fines for taking part in unlicensed protests, it's obvious to us that Putin is corrupt and is using the power of the state to silence his critics.

We seldom stop to think that politicians in our own country not only have the same means available to them, but they've used them. (Unless of course, a Republican resorted to dirty tricks, as Richard Nixon did. Then we never hear the end of it.)

Earlier this year, Tea Party groups across the country received letters from the IRS demanding that they detail their operations, down to what speeches are delivered at their rallies. If this happened in Russia, we'd see it as a clear example of political intimidation. When it happens here, the media ignores it. Not surprisingly, many Occupy groups weren't required to carry the proper permits to demonstrate, an advantage that wasn't often granted to Tea Partiers.

It's nothing new--Bill Clinton apparently was fond of sicking the IRS on his political enemies. Bill O'Reilly said he was audited several years in a row, joining, according to Judicial Watch:

The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.

A corrupt administration can also vigorously pursue its enemies with the Justice Department .Just ask Newscorp, the parent company of Fox News. The British phone hacking scandal opened the door for the Obama Administration to investigate the only non-liberal major TV news outlet.

A big bureaucracy aids public officials in persecuting opponents. The government has the power to grant or withhold permits as it sees fit. Get on the wrong side of some politicians, and your venture may be delayed or destroyed. When the government runs an auto company, it has an incentive to investigate companies that it finds itself in competition with. Remember the overblown Toyota acceleration scandal? When the government props up banks, the banks have an incentive to drop customers its handlers find offensive, like ammo-producer McMillan. That company was told by Bank of America, which received $20 billion in bailout money, that the bank had reached a politically motivated decision to terminate their relationship.

Big government means big opportunities to abuse power. It's not something that just happens overseas. And those opportunities are not going to waste.tail their operations, down to what speeches are delivered at their rallies. If this happened in Russia, we'd see it as a clear example of political intimidation. When it happens here, the media ignores it. Not surprisingly, many Occupy groups weren't required to carry the proper permits to demonstrate, an advantage that wasn't often granted to Tea Partiers.

It's nothing new--Bill Clinton apparently was fond of sicking the IRS on his political enemies. Bill O'Reilly said he was audited several years in a row, joining, according to Judicial Watch:

The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.

A corrupt administration can also vigorously pursue its enemies with the Justice Department .Just ask Newscorp, the parent company of Fox News. The British phone hacking scandal opened the door for the Obama Administration to investigate the only non-liberal major TV news outlet.

A big bureaucracy aids public officials in persecuting opponents. The government has the power to grant or withhold permits as it sees fit. Get on the wrong side of some politicians, and your venture may be delayed or destroyed. When the government runs an auto company, it has an incentive to investigate companies that it finds itself in competition with. Remember the overblown Toyota acceleration scandal? When the government props up banks, the banks have an incentive to drop customers its handlers find offensive, like ammo-producer McMillan. That company was told by Bank of America, which received $20 billion in bailout money, that the bank had reached a politically motivated decision to terminate their relationship.

Big government means big opportunities to abuse power. It's not something that just happens overseas. And those opportunities are not going to waste.

The casual news consumer looks at the news as simply stuff that happened that day. They have no idea that there are machinations at work behind the scenes that try very hard to present the daily events in a certain light. After studying politics for a certain amount of time, you start to see that the news is a form of theater--particularly TV news.

When the curtain goes up, I don't see a hard-hitting anchorman dutifully reporting the important events from around the world. I see actors, stages, scripts, directors, and producers.  Except they aren't there to entertain me--they are creating a program to manipulate us into viewing the world as they do

Why go through the effort of indirectly influencing us--can't they just come out and directly appeal to our reasoning abilities with straight facts? Unfortunately, liberal elites in the news tend to think of people as stupid, or uninformed, or unevolved, or too lazy to listen to reason. So, they need to be manipulated, as one manipulates a child.

Have you ever told a toddler to eat his vegetables like a big boy? Look, we adults ate all of our vegetables, don't you want to be like us?

That's how the media treats us, and here's an example.

I walked into a sandwich shop in Simi Valley Monday. Glancing up at a CNN anchor interviewing Jay-Z on a big screen hanging on the wall, I saw Jay-Z giving his support for President Obama's stance on gay marriage.

After Jay-Z finished, the anchor looked into the camera and said lots of people listen to Jay-Z, leaving the "and you should, too" part unspoken.

That's what you do to children. It's a tiny example, but it's still insulting to the intelligent. 

After more than 35 years in the Senate, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana was ousted Tuesday by a tea party challenger in a Republican primary that showed how hard it is for a veteran lawmaker known for his ability to compromise to win reelection in the current political environment.

I just got back from an all-American family vacation in Arizona. If I had done it in California, I'd have been slapped with fines and gone to jail.

The short weekend excursion involved driving without seatbelts, riding in the bed of trucks, firing fully automatic weapons indoors, pulling off the road into the desert and firing high-powered rifles, driving more than 65mph down the highway, and riding ATV's in non-designated areas.

When we crossed the California border on the way home, you could feel the smothering oppression set in again.

Amazingly, we were able to have all that fun, which would have landed me in prison if I tried it in California, in a responsible manner and everybody had a good time.

Liberals would have been horrified by what we did, even though we did it with common sense.  In one part of the trip, we pulled off onto a desert path in a pickup truck (I can hear liberals gasp).  I took one of my sons into the bed of the truck and we ambled into the desert slowly and carefully, as he grinned from ear to ear. He would have not experienced this in California, unless I have seatbelts installed in the bed of my truck.

At another point in my trip, the kids went off with mom while we fired pistols, shotguns, and rifles against the side of a desert mountain off of a highway, which would have caught law enforcement's attention in California unless we drove out to the middle of nowhere.

Earlier, we had visited a shooting range where we fired a machine gun, which would also have been illegal in California. A worker there noted that people in Arizona get to carry concealed firearms on their person, which would get you arrested in our lovely state unless the government granted you a special permit. I didn't see any shootouts in Arizona even though all these people are carrying guns.

The next day we took a pontoon out onto Lake Havasu. Want to have a beer on the lake? Go for it. In California, better check the rules for each lake. Lake Piru, for example, banned alcohol in 2010.

The all-American vacation that was normal a generation ago is all but banned in California, and the trend is that it's getting worse.

I wish Earth Day and May Day were on the same day, because then it might be easier to persuade liberals of the errors of their ways.

It's sometimes hard to get through to people with a different ideology than yours, so sometimes it helps to speak to them in their own terms. Since Earth Day environmentalism and May Day anti-capitalism go hand in hand and the two days are close together on the calendar, let's discuss capitalism in terms of environmentalism.

Environmentalists don't want delicate ecosystems impacted by mankind's intrusion into nature. One small environmental change brought on by humans may impact the mating habits of some rodent, which causes fewer rodents, which impacts the eating habits of an animal one link higher on the food chain, and so forth until the ecosystem is destroyed.

Almost all organisms enter into relationships with one another where their growth and survival often depends on other their symbiotic relationship with other organisms. Flowers are colorful to attract bees, and bees spread the pollen to other flowers. The bees flourish and so do the flowers.

 Humans also enter into symbiosis with other humans. Two people, two groups, two classes, or two nations may work together to advance mutual interests, even the "99%" and the "1%". Poor and middle-class people are typically paid by rich people to perform some function at some company, a company that usually makes ever-more affordable items that the poor and rich people can buy to further enhance their quality of life.

Both groups benefit, like bees and flowers. However, those in the Occupy Movement and other socialists see this relationship as exploitative. They view the relationship between the wealthy and the non-wealthy in terms of parasite and host. One takes from the other without providing any benefit.

Ironically, there's ardent support on the Left for those that take much from others but don't contribute much themselves-- the chronically unemployed, chronically dependent, criminals, and regulators.

Instead, the view the parasites as those that started companies that employ many people and create products that people want at prices they are willing to pay for them.

Their solution is to upset that ecosystem with a heavy hand, something they would never do to other natural relationships, completely oblivious that when you impact one link of the food chain you impact them all, often to the detriment of every organism in it.

In introductory biology classes we learn that ecosystems are made up of producers and consumers. It's no coincidence the same terms are used in economies as well. Progressives would do well to take their conservationist approach to the environment and apply it to the economy.