Also, the national debt is standing at $6.4 trillion and would already have gone beyond the debt limit if it wasn't for the $45.7 billion that the government somehow considers not subject to the limit.

The national debt went up $421 billion in fiscal 2002 while the government claimed a $159 billion deficit with their Enron style bookkeeping. Then we added another $177.5 billion in the first three months of fiscal 2003 for a fifteen month total of $600 billion ($598.3 billion) in new debt since the beginning of the last fiscal year.

In the last month, January, the U.S. Treasury has been in a holding or juggling position to stay below the debt limit until Congress raises the ceiling. And Congress is considering a bill that would make raises automatic so they don't have to continually bother with this nuisance. It has only been seven months since we last raised the debt ceiling on June 31, 2002, at the very last minute and mostly to pay the interest due entitlement trust funds in a timely manner.

In view of the economy and everything else that has been happening in the last year or more, the Bush budget for 2004 is insane. Revenues have never increased that much even in the bubble years.

In fiscal 2002 the government predicted revenues that didn't even come close to expectations. The 2002 budget anticipated Individual Income Tax receipts of $1.079 trillion. Because of the economy, what the government got was $858.3 billion. That's a $221 billion shortfall.

The 2002 budget predicted corporate income taxes of $218.8 billion. What they got was $148 billion, a shortfall of $70.8 billion.

All in all, what the President's 2002 budget proposal had anticipated was a revenue total of $2.19 trillion and what it really got was a total of $1.85 trillion, a shortfall of $338.4 billion.

How much did the national debt rise in the same period? $421 billion. And part of this debt increase was interest paid entitlement trust funds by just handing them more bogus bonds.

Do I have to say it? Isn't it obvious? When the government needs more money, they simply borrow it. They sell Treasury securities and run up the debt. They do not print up more money or depend on the Federal Reserve for anything except help in selling Treasury securities through their banking network. It's so much easier to put your children and grandchildren on the hook by borrowing from investors and stealing Social Security and other entitlement surpluses ($149 billion last year).

Here's a table, right from Bush's new budget proposal:

Pardon me while I go puke. I can't believe that I voted for this man, but then what was the alternative? This simple little table is so disgusting I hardly know where to start.

Isn't it interesting that after experiencing a huge shortfall in receipts last year, fiscal 2002 where their budget was expecting receipts of $2.19 trillion, the Bush administration is now showing what they really got in 2002 and expecting even lower receipts this year, fiscal 2003? What does that tell you about the economy or any hope for a meaningful stimulus package?

Is this $1.836 trillion a clue to what Congress has done to the President's last proposed budget for fiscal 2003 where expected revenue was $2.048 trillion? (see table) Is that what's taking so long to pass a budget for the year we're already into by four months?

If we had a deficit of $158 billion last year and the national debt went up $421 billion, where do you suppose the debt is going to end up this year? Will an anticipated deficit of $304 billion, by the government's Enron style bookkeeping, turn out giving us a debt increase of $700 to $800 billion? You can bet on it.

What's the purpose of "Debt held by the public" in this table except to prove that the government itself doesn't give any credence to the phony and fraudulent "Intragovernmental Holdings" side of the national debt, the side composed almost entirely of entitlement trust funds? Remember that the national debt currently stands at $6.4 trillion and that the Social Security Trust Fund alone now holds 21.5 percent of this debt standing at $1.38 trillion as of December 31, 2002.

At first, I thought that maybe they were trying to show us that making up for the deficit in their spending would come from borrowing from investors honestly, but then I found that the numbers don't add up. Subtract the 3,878 of fiscal 2003 from the 3,540 of fiscal 2002 and you get an addition of $338 billion, not the $304 billion they are showing for a deficit. The same is true for other years. In the case of fiscal 2003, the discrepancy is $34 billion. More on this in a moment.

I went scurrying back to my record of the fiscal 2002 budget proposal to see what "Table S-1" had there (I've downloaded them back to 1995). Lo and behold, they didn't previously break the President's ten year plan out this way so it's not there.

The President's Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) makes up this 2004 budget proposal, so you can't expect too much in the way of accuracy. The most reliable figures in the table above are those from fiscal 2002 and even there the U.S. Treasury rounds the deficit figure up to $159 billion, not $158 billion.

Since November, I've been telling you that at least 11 of the smaller entitlements have been drawing on their bogus holdings in equally bogus trust funds. We are being double taxed right now, today, and no one else is even mentioning it.

While these securities have no marketable value, and represent nothing but debt taxpayers bought by giving the government surpluses, they do represent double taxation. Last year, these 11 entitlements took $45.6 billion from the Treasury's general fund of current personal income and corporate taxes or money borrowed. We are paying twice, plus interest, for surplus money the Beltway Bandits stole and spent elsewhere.

For example, the largest and most readily understandable draw down double taxation is coming from the Unemployment Trust Fund. Current tax receipts from employers are not enough to pay benefits to all of the unemployed plus the extensions granted by Congress. The cash is coming out of the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. And overall, entitlements are still producing a surplus.

It could be these entitlement draw downs that the OMB is considering in its discrepancies cited above. Maybe they think the Labor Department will not have to draw quite as much from its Unemployment Trust Fund in 2003.

How long will the public put up with this fraudulent accounting and lack of fiscal responsibility before starting to accuse the government of crimes far beyond anything Enron, WorldCom, or Martha Stewart ever thought of doing?