In just a few days a new ObamaCare tax—that will double the following year—will kick in to fund “comparative effectiveness research” that’s supposed to help the government save money by finding ways to ration healthcare.

This is crazy; a semi-secret tax so the feds have cash to pay bureaucrats to examine everyone’s health records and, in turn, the government can save money by cutting back on care. The official plan, as noted by a national news wire this week, is to conduct research to find out which drugs, medical procedures, tests, and treatments work best. It’s part of a “little-known provision” of the president’s socialist takeover of the nation’s healthcare system.

Who will conduct this valuable research? A new quasi-governmental agency (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute or PCORI) created by ObamaCare to provide information about the “best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions.” PCORI claims its research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available.

To conduct this valuable work, PCORI needs cash. That’s where the new, little-known tax kicks in. Beginning in 2012, Uncle Sam will charge insurance companies a new fee to fund the PCORI’s research. The tax will be $1 per person in 2012 and will double in 2013 and increase with inflation in the following years. Insurers will soon receive guidance on the new tax from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Obama has already given this sort of medical effectiveness research a big chunk of change. In fact, his disastrous 2009 economic stimulus bill included more than….

Read more from Judicial Watch.

President Obama recently proclaimed, “This is not class warfare – it’s math.” But the math behind a “millionaires’ tax” tells a different story.

Let’s be clear; I agree that the wealthy should pay their “fair share.” That’s never been the issue. And certainly we all can agree that it’s time to thoroughly examine which tax loopholes should be closed.

As this national discussion unfolds, we owe it to the American people to be clear about the facts about what a fair share is and who really pays what in this country.

As the recent Facebook group We Are the 53 Percent suggests, a growing number of Americans think they pay their fair share and others should contribute, too. Should the 53 percent who pay federal income taxes be asked to pay more while the remaining aren’t paying anything?

Consider that just a few years ago, before the president’s stimulus package offered payroll-tax deductions and economic stimulus checks, the number of Americans paying federal income taxes was 62 percent.

The numbers of those who don’t pay have expanded, and the top earners already pay a disproportionate share under our progressive tax system. In 2009, the Tax Foundation reported that the tax burden of the top 1 percent exceeded that of the bottom 95 percent.

President Obama and Senate Democrats would like to make the system more progressive with the addition of a tax on the wealthy. This, they argue, would grow revenue and help end our deficit spending. So, is it likely?

We don’t have to speculate about the impact because the millionaires’ tax is not a new idea, and as we’ve seen throughout the country, it does little to alleviate the burdens created by our addiction to spending.

California has imposed a 1 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million. Despite this extra tax on the wealthy, California still projects a 2012 budget deficit of more than $25 billion. In fact, 10 of the 11 states with high income-tax add-ons have a projected 2012 budget deficit.

The idea that we can tax our way into fiscal order is a fallacy. A wealth tax doesn’t necessarily create greater revenue; it just gives government more excuses to further delay making the tough decisions about our spending excesses.

It’s not just the states that have tried a wealth tax; the federal government has, too. In 1960, the top federal income-tax rate was 91 percent on incomes over $1 million. By 1982, as the top rate dropped to 50 percent, federal income-tax revenue as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew.

Today’s proponents of a millionaires’ tax aren’t focused on growing revenue to balance the budget. Even if the president took 100 percent of every millionaire’s income, that still would leave a deficit of….

Read more from Rep. Darrell Issa, The Washington Times.

Over the past five months, the Republican presidential candidates participated in 13 debates where they fielded dozens of penetrating questions on every major issue facing the nation, and some not so major.

The nationally televised and/or internet-streamed forums each drew an average of 5 million to 6 million viewers, along with breathless wall-to-wall coverage, commentary and criticism from the news media, radio and TV talk shows, internet blogs, and partisan websites.

Indeed, the GOP hopefuls have been thoroughly queried on a laundry list of issues ranging from immigration problems to the faltering economy, Iran’s nuclear program to trade deficits with China, the intricacies of climate change to strategies to combat terrorism, exploding government regulations to skyrocketing public debt, plus some uncomfortable questions about their pasts and their personal lives.

Yet, during all that time, the man they hope to defeat next November has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of these issues. Since August, President Obama has held only one formal White House news conference. That came on Oct. 6, nearly three months ago. It lasted 74 minutes, shorter than any single Republican debate, and the president was asked 17 questions, most of them softballs on the economy and his latest legislative proposals to create jobs.

No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or North Korea — global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover, he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.

Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, abetted by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time.

Just over the last couple of weeks, several major world events cried out for presidential comment, but….

Read more from Richard Benedetto, RealClearPolitics.com.