That's right. The same debt you have been repeatedly told was being "paid down" is rising. And it's not rising by small amounts the way it did last year when it went up a mere $18 billion.

This year, fiscal 2001, the debt that all taxpayers are responsible for paying-off will rise by an amount comparable to the days when we were beating the Russians into the ground economically.

It doesn't take any great genius to see that if the national debt has risen this much in eleven months, it will easily go over one hundred billion in the month remaining. And that's not chicken feed.

At a time when the horrific events of September 11th require Americans to band together in sorrow but show that indomitable spirit unique to our nation and our way of life, it's incumbent on all of us to be honest. To not lie to one another or try to lull anyone into a false sense of security or complacency. And this is particularly true of our leaders. Those we must trust in time of need.

Ha, but the government has not been lying to us, not entirely. They truly have been paying down one part of the national debt—the part that matters to them, not to you.

You see, the federal government conveniently divides what it should unite, and unites under a "unified budget" what it should divide.

If national budgets were divided the way they used to be, divided into discretionary receipts and expenditures on one side and mandatory on the other, then everyone would be able to clearly see where surpluses come from and where they go.

Last year, we would have clearly seen that it required $150 billion stolen from entitlements to balance the "unified" budget and that only $87 billion from income tax overcharges was "surplus." This surplus broke down into $70 billion in personal income tax overcharges and approximately $17 billion from corporate tax surplus, what individuals pay indirectly when they buy goods and services. And the $38 billion rebate would be in true perspective.

Ordinary people would be able to look at the government's huge numbers in much the same way they look at their own home accounts. They would be able to clearly see where the contracts that have to be paid lie and where there's a choice to spend on other things like eating better, home repair, cars, clothes or more expensive schools for the kids.

By lumping it all together, the government obscures mandatory and discretionary elements. And when it comes to the national debt, just the opposite is true. Here, the government conveniently separate the debt into two parts.

No one can pay off any part of the national debt except the taxpayer. It all comes from taxpayer money. The federal government has no other revenue to speak of. Sure, there might be a little from national park tickets, but any revenue this not-for-profit organization generates from anything other than taxes doesn't amount to a hill of beans. They can't even sell weapons to other nations without an Ollie North type undercover operation.

But by dividing the national debt into "Debt Held by the Public" and "Intragovernmental Holdings" they can certainly compound what everyone understands of debt. On one side you've got valid contracts made with investors who wanted to loan the government money because it's the "safest investment in the world"—safe only because it's backed by every taxpayer in the country.

While on the other side, you've got money they pretend to borrow from entitlements like Social Security and a great many others, plus perks that they set up for themselves, and a few donations from philanthropists who were also robbed. By that I mean that the money was spent elsewhere while markers or debt chits were deposited in black hole debit accounts that the government labels "trust funds." Then loyal nitwits like Neil Cavuto can tell everyone that it really doesn't matter whether the trust funds hold anything or not and the government moves in mysterious ways.

It's really very simple. As scams go, it's no more complicated although different from a Ponzi scheme or a Marc Rich money laundering crime. It's just that the numbers are enormous.

Teaching the American public that a "balanced unified budget" was desirable and "deficits" were as evil as communism, the government has set out to eliminate a form of honest borrowing left to us by our founding fathers. Valid Treasury securities sought by everyone from other nations to little old ladies looking for a safe haven with modest return. Eliminate it completely over time simply because they abused it for a decade or so. Throw the baby out with the bath water. And our new President can talk about "contingency" funding in the trillions.

Too complicated? I'm sorry. You can follow it monthly in the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt web pages, or under the "important numbers" section of the Taxpayer's Union for Financial Freedom--TUFF.

The trick is that the government is saving six to seven cents in accrued cash interest with every excess entitlement dollar you give them. This is a flat-out exchange of one dollar for six cents. But you see, the government must pay annual interest to investors in real cash. Interest on the entitlement "Intragovernmental" side is paid by simply handing a debit "trust" account more bogus bonds, more debt, no cash involved until you must redeem these additional markers some day.

Hence, the debt rises because what we, you and I, already owe entitlements is at a very high multiple. The interest alone to the Social Security Trust Fund will top $60 billion this year, and there are dozens of other entitlements in the same boat or float.

The government even promises to share this debt laundering interest savings with you. Not all of it of course, but the savings will "better enable them to meet future obligations" that would be to your benefit. How wonderful, particularly since there's no guarantee it won't go to more pork.

Can you really trust the people who rob you to now protect you? That's the question that has haunted me since shortly after the attack of black Tuesday. And the answer I've come up with is, maybe. Maybe you can, only because without you they would have to find new victims to rob.

And let's not forget, the terrorist attack of September 11 was a strike at the heart of international banking, a good part and essential tool of the New World Order and something a great many people are against.