Another example on the same day, Friday September 7, 2001, Brit Hume had Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard), Jeff Birnbaum (Fortune) and Mort Kondracke (Roll Call) on his FOX News show billed as a roundtable "Special Report."

They started with a video clip of Senator Domenici arguing that there's nothing wrong with using part of the Social Security surplus for education and defense.

Immediately after the video, Hume launched the discussion by reminding his audience that Domenici had been talking about the "estimated $150 to $160 billion Social Security surplus for this year."

You've probably heard others use similar or the same figures in this range. Where do they get these preposterous numbers? They're almost double the real Social Security surplus.

The US Treasury is your most reliable source of information here because they don't deal in speculation or fancy predictions. They're bean counters recording history, the ins and outs of money or the "on" or "off" budget flow of receipts and expenditures. It's not rocket science. The numbers are huge, but it's the same as your own home checking account. You've either got it or you don't. There's no two ways about it. If you're off, the bank can straighten you out. And the US Treasury is the bank.

Those who would like to debate prehistoric man's invention of numbers we all accept or the philosophical value of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, while unable to say it in plain language, are either con men or trying to snow you. If that's your bag, come back in ten years and I'll dust off my nine volumes and take a look at what you found.

The Treasury's Monthly Report for July, 2001, a report you can subscribe to and that comes out around the 14th of every month, reported the Social Security Trust Fund at $1.160 trillion. Remember, that's the combination of the Federal Old Age & Survivors Insurance fund and the Disability Insurance fund. (see: Trust Fund List for an example)

Now, that's exactly $153 billion over the $1.007 trillion the trust fund held at the close of fiscal 2000. (see Trust Fund history table) Interesting, isn't it? It's exactly the $9 billion that Knight Ridder, a liberal news service, claims the CBO is calculating as yet to be covered "expense" that requires tapping "the Social Security Surplus." $162 billion minus $153 billion. Tell me that this is accidental please.

Trouble is, there's still two months to report for the ever growing Social Security Trust Fund's pile of debt. And you're grammar school children should be able to tell you that the first ten months of the fiscal year have averaged $15.3 billion increases per month. So where do you think it's going to end up on September 30, two months from the Treasury's July report?

But that's not the worst of it. A good chunk of the Social Security Trust Fund's accumulated debt comes from annual interest already paid against the fund's $1.007 trillion accumulated last year. Not only does the Treasury pay this interest almost as fast as they follow directives to use incoming monthly surpluses to "pay down" the investor side of the national debt, but this interest adds up to $61 billion simply handed the trust fund with more junk bonds, no cash involved. No cost to the Beltway Bandits.

The Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt reports that by the end of July, 2001, average interest paid "special obligation" nonmarketable bonds was exactly 6.056 percent, with two months to go for the final average. Figure it out for yourself.

And that means that the real surplus paid by America's workers in extra payroll tax overcharges is only $92 billion as of the end of July. A substantial number to be sure, but certainly not what "news" people and politicians are telling you.

Last year, fiscal 2000, the real Social Security surplus hit exactly $95.4 billion, a figure that will be topped in fiscal 2001 despite layoffs that result in fewer workers contributing their payroll tax overcharges or feeding the "pay-as-you-go" system. The term institutional bureaucrats apply to normal business; i.e., you either make the nut or you don't.

Why would so many people lie to you about Social Security's profits? That's the question that must be addressed today? And you can excuse the news people. They deal in second hand information all the time, believe what politicians tell them, and seldom check sources like the Treasury figures. They're much too busy playing "upsmanship" games just like the old Vance Packard days. It's a competitive business you know, and they've all got to be "the best" which, in their simple minds, usually just means the first to plunge in over their heads.

While you're thinking about the above, remember that the federal government robs all other entitlements with the same abandon they rob Social Security and neither political party wants you thinking about that.

Even George W. Bush's "personal accounts" idea, borrowed from his father's 1987 Thrift Savings Plan, and targeted towards a limited number of thoroughly disenchanted youths does nothing to address the other entitlements while trying to keep the lion's share of the pie for the Beltway Bandits.

We are about to enter an election year wherein "the third rail" might finally be put on the front burner and get the attention it deserves. All while the name of the game is to stall. So check the numbers yourself and start taking names.