U.S. Senator Dick Durbin recently held a press conference with members of the mainstream media to talk about the downgrade crisis. But the Senator’s scripted storyline veered off-course when a conservative reporter – me – showed up to ask an embarrassing question. Namely, “Senator, you’ve blamed the tea party…but do you bear any responsibility for this downgrade crisis?”

What, you didn’t hear about this incident in the media? For those of you that need more proof that journalism is dead, read on.

Monday was another beautiful day for a mainstream media cover-up in
Chicago.  But it would not have been complete without a picnic-basket
full of hypocrisy from our very own U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of
Illinois. 

You may remember Dick.

He’s the Senator that hysterically compared the treatment of the Gitmo detainees to Nazis, Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot. While calling for an end to “hateful” rhetoric, he’s the one who wrongfully pointed his crooked finger at the Tea Party Movement and Gov. Sarah Palin, blaming them for the Tucson massacre and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Recently, he’s the one that, hypocritically, accused the Tea Party Republicans of “political extortion” in the debt ceiling debate.

While the markets were tanking – Durbin took some time out to have a press conference and dish to his friends in the Chicago media about the S&P downgrade of our nation’s sterling credit rating.

Given his history, I expected more of the same accusatory rhetoric about the tea party from Durbin. Since the report of the downgrade hit the newswires last Friday, members of Durbin’s party have been in full anti-tea party spin control.

“The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade,” said former White House advisor David Axelrod on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Sen. John Kerry must have received the same memo. “This is the tea party downgrade,” said Kerry on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

I went to Durbin’s press conference to set the record straight. My objective: some journalistic balance. Not only did Durbin refuse to answer the question but his cronies in the Chicago media went on the attack.

One of those crony journalists was Jim Anderson, news director for the Illinois Radio Network. You can hear him in the background telling Durbin, “He organizes tea party rallies."  In media terms, that’s called being fair and impartial. That’s what a real journalist does.

I stood my ground and asked the question a number of times. “You’re not allowed to ask questions during a press conference,” bleated Anderson. “We are going to have you thrown out by the cops,” he said, running interference for Durbin. In addition to doing news for the Illinois Radio Network, Anderson apparently moonlights as an unpaid member of Dick Durbin’s staff.

A special agent was soon dispatched to have me escorted out of the room, where I, as press, had a right to be. At least, that’s what I read, once upon a time, in the U.S. Constitution.

I am an independent social journalist for the Washington Times Communities and contribute to the American Spectator, and Breitbart.com among others. No other blogger, freelance journalist, or other member of the media was asked to show their credentials at this event. In fact, the event was sponsored by City Club of Chicago and was open to media and the public.

This brings us to the eternal question:  Who is media and who is not?  Who gets to decide? Sen. Dick Durbin? His friends in the Chicago media?  Are public officials accountable to the public?  Do we have the right to question authority?  Or must we just accept what they bestow upon us?  Do we have the right to question the media?  Or do we have to let the so-called “real” journalists impose their own idea of news?  Of truth?

Read more of this story at The Washington Times By William J. Kelly.  

President Obama will host an Iftar dinner this evening that breaks the Ramadan holiday’s daily fast. The dinner became an annual White House tradition under President Bill Clinton and was continued by President George W. Bush. The White House says invited guests include religious and grass-roots leaders in the Muslim-American community as well as leaders of other faiths and elected officials.

Earlier, the Associated Press reports the president has separate meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The White House Press Office released the following statement by President Obama on Ramadan August 1:

"As Ramadan begins, Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to Muslim communities in the United States and around the world.  Ramadan is a festive time that is anticipated for months by Muslims everywhere.  Families and communities share the happiness of gathering together for iftar and prayers. Bazaars light up the night in many cities from Rabat to Jakarta.  And here in the United States, Muslim Americans share Ramadan traditions with their neighbors, fellow students, and co-workers.

"For so many Muslims around the world, Ramadan is also a time of deep reflection and sacrifice. As in other faiths, fasting is used to increase spirituality, discipline, and consciousness of God’s mercy.  It is also a reminder of the importance of reaching out to those less fortunate.  The heartbreaking accounts of lost lives and the images of families and children in Somalia and the Horn of Africa struggling to survive remind us of our common humanity and compel us to act.  Now is the time for nations and peoples to come together to avert an even worse catastrophe by offering support and assistance to on-going relief efforts.
 
"Times like this remind us of the lesson of all great faiths, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  In that spirit, I wish Muslims around the world a blessed month, and I look forward to again hosting an Iftar dinner here at the White House.  Ramadan Kareem," President Obama said.
 

Manufacturing activity barely grew in July.  The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing executives, said Monday that its index of manufacturing activity fell to 50.9 percent in July from 55.3 percent in June.  Tomorrow, the government issues July’s employment report.

It was the 23rd straight month of manufacturing growth. But the reading was the lowest reading since July 2009 — one month after the recession officially ended.  Companies slashed inventories after building them up in June.  Output, employment, and prices paid by manufacturers all grew more slowly in July.  The disappointing report suggests the dismal economic growth in the first half of the year could extend into the July-September quarter. 

"The ISM manufacturing report for July is a shocker and strongly suggests that the disappointing performance of the economy in the first half of the year was not just temporary," said Paul Dales, a senior U.S. economist for Capital Economics.

In a separate more positive report, the Commerce Department said builders began work on more projects in June, pushing construction spending higher for a third straight month.

Construction spending rose 0.2 percent in June, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $772.3 billion, the government said. But even with the gains, spending remains slightly above an 11-year low hit in March and is just half of the $1.5 trillion pace considered healthy by most economists.

The economy expanded at a dismal 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June period after an even worse 0.4 percent increase in the first three months of the year, the government said Friday.

The factory sector has expanded in every month but one since the recession ended in June 2009. The ISM’s index topped 60 for four straight months at the start of the year.

But manufacturing has stumbled in recent months. A parts shortage stemming from Japan’s March 11 earthquake disrupted automakers’ supply chains, cutting into the output of new cars. And high gas prices left Americans with less money to spend on discretionary items, such as vacations, furniture and appliances.

The index fell in May to 53.5 from April’s reading of 60.4. That was the sharpest one-month drop since 1984.

Employers have responded by pulling back on hiring. The economy added just 18,000 net jobs in June, the fewest in nine months, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent. Hiring by manufacturers was nearly flat in the April-June period.

Manufacturing represents only about 11 percent of U.S. economic activity and can contribute only so much to the broader economic recovery. For unemployment to fall significantly, consumer income and spending also must pick up.

The ISM, a trade group of purchasing executives based in Tempe, Ariz., compiles its manufacturing index by surveying about 300 purchasing executives across the country. 

The good news out of the debt debate is that Washington is now debating how much we can cut instead of how much we can spend. The American people deserve all the credit for forcing that change. Unfortunately, it’s still all talk in Washington. This deal is a victory for politicians but a defeat for families.

In spite of what politicians on both sides are saying, this agreement does not cut any spending over 10 years. In fact, it increases discretionary spending by $830 billion.

I voted against this agreement because it does nothing to address the real drivers of our debt. It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program. The specter of default or a credit downgrade will still hang over our economy after this deal becomes law.

Politicians on both sides are misleading the country by calling a slowdown in the growth rate of new spending a “cut.” Spending will increase at a time when real cuts are necessary to make us live within our means, repair our economy and preserve our credit rating.

It is true that next year there will be a genuine cut of $7 billion when discretionary spending drops from $1.05 trillion to $1.043 trillion. But with our government borrowing $4.5 billion a day, that $7 billion is enough to fund the government for about 36 hours. And after our day and a half of restraint, spending will increase $830 billion over 10 years.

Supporters say the real savings will come when the joint committee the deal empowers makes recommendations to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion (as we increase the debt limit by the same amount). But the enforcement mechanism designed to force these hard decisions — across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs — will never work. Congress will easily evade these caps. In the Senate, all it will take is 60 votes — the threshold for passing anything. Some have complained about defense cuts, but everyone in Washington knows those cuts can be avoided through supplemental or “emergency” spending bills.

I proudly served on the president’s debt commission and spent months negotiating with senators of both parties in the Gang of Six. But I took a break from the Gang of Six because we were not offering enough savings, especially in entitlements, to heal our economy. And the truth is that the joint committee is likely to be a step backward from the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson commission.

I am the first to admit that, with this plan, the commission process in Washington has become a farce. The plan’s joint committee has been called a “super” committee because it is anything but.

For our country’s sake, I hope I am wrong. Nothing prevents the congressional committee from recommending deficit reduction far in excess of $1.2 trillion. For that to happen, however, both sides will have to sacrifice their sacred cows and embrace real entitlement reform and tax reform.

Experience has taught me that to achieve real savings, there is no substitute for being specific. In Washington, however, wide is the road that leads to pledges, commissions and caps, and narrow is the road that leads to cuts. That’s why I have targeted specific excesses such as the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the ethanol tax earmark. It’s why I recently released a 620-page report, “Back in Black,” that makes hundreds of recommendations and calls for $9 trillion in deficit reduction. Congress could spend a year eliminating no-brainer examples of waste and duplication, such as our government’s policy of directing unemployment benefits to millionaires.

I understand that Congress is not ready to accept $9 trillion in deficit reduction even though changes of that magnitude are necessary to heal our economy. Congressional leaders are probably correct that this is the best deal they could have gotten. The only recourse the people have, then, is to elect lawmakers who will produce better results.

I was among the first members of Congress to call for using the debt-limit debate as leverage to force spending cuts. I’m glad I did. Even though the cuts didn’t materialize, the debate informed the American people of the scope and magnitude of the problem.

The real debt crisis is not a debate that has been imposed on Washington by Tea Party activists. It is a crisis Washington has imposed on the American people through laziness, incompetence, dishonesty and political expediency.  Politicians can talk all they want about how they did something to address the problem. But when the flaws of this plan become apparent, another change election will be coming.

Edit Note: This opinion column by Dr. Coburn first appeared today in the Washington Post.

In defense of his support of the Budget Control Act of 2011, Oklahoma Representative James Lankford offered this message to supporters this morning:

While this was not a perfect bill and certainly does not solve all of our nation’s fiscal problems, I supported it because I believe it makes a solid first step in setting our nation on a path to fiscal responsibility.   

Anyone who assumes that a single vote on a single day will solve all of our debt problems underestimates the size and scope of the issue. 

Nobody – Republican or Democrat – thinks this is the perfect deal.  There are no simple solutions to our debt crisis.  At this point, our mountain of debt is simply too insurmountable to solve with one legislative fix.

It has been seven months since I was sworn into the House of Representatives, and during that time, Oklahomans have continually expressed their sincere concern and dire skepticism about our nation’s fiscal responsibility.  We have accumulated $14.3 trillion in debt over many years and through both parties.  I wish I could share all of the information I have learned about our debt, but I do not want to take up all of the space in your inbox; however, let me take a few moments to fill you in on what I know.

The federal government has been on a reckless spending spree with the nation’s credit card for years.  This is not a Democrat or Republican issue – this is a debt issue.  Never before have we faced a mountain of debt this high, which now amounts to 100% of our GDP.  Although a nation so far in the fiscal hole does not have many chances to be optimistic, this unprecedented situation has provided an opportunity to make some real changes to our current predicament.  

Our surging debt continues to threaten the nation’s long-term economic sustainability; however, I am happy to report that the tides are turning in Washington on the unrestricted spending spree.   The Budget Control Act begins to institute long-term fiscal reforms through a number of mechanisms.  

First and foremost, it cuts spending.  The bill cuts $21 billion in spending in Fiscal Year 2012, and freezes it for the next two years.  For the eight years that follow, discretionary spending grows at less than two percent a year, a number smaller than inflation. While this amount of spending cuts is too low, it is the first time discretionary spending has reduced two years in a row.  This is the first step.

Second, it caps our nation’s spending levels for the next decade.  These binding budget caps will control our medium-term spending at a rate much less than the original baseline.  

Third, and most importantly, Congress will be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to our Constitution by the end of this year.  A BBA is the ultimate solution to our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges.  If approved by Congress, the BBA would be sent to the fifty states for ratification.  Should three-quarters of the states approve ratification, our constitution would be amended to force Congress to live within its means, once and for all.  All but one of the states employ some type of a BBA, and nearly 80 percent of the American public supports a balanced budget amendment.  It is unconscionable to think that this same form of budgetary restraint used in our states could not be implemented at the federal level.  It has been more than 15 years since Congress has considered a BBA, and ensuring a vote is a major step forward.

In addition, this plan will create a bipartisan, bicameral committee comprised of three House Republicans, three House Democrats, three Senate Republicans, and three Senate Democrats. This joint-committee will be tasked with identifying additional spending cuts and other budgetary reforms on which Congress must vote for the debt ceiling to be raised again. It is important to remember that this joint-committee will still be accountable to Congress and will not be able to enact any legislation without a vote of approval from both the House and Senate. The Joint Committee is important to the Senate because they have been unable to move any legislation for more than two years.

In conclusion, I want to express my cautious optimism for our nation’s future.  Although this vote is the first in a series of necessary fundamental fiscal changes, it is an acceptable first step.  We cut spending, we capped spending, and we furthered the cause of a balanced budget amendment – the ultimate solution for fiscal responsibility in Washington.  With more than $14 trillion in debt, Americans understand that we cannot quickly solve the problem that has built over a generation.  We must get started, and today we took the first step on a long journey back to fiscal responsibility.