Justin,
Can you elaborate on who the "elite ruling class" is?

Last time I looked at my pay stub I was paying just as much as everybody else who works. Public employee class. That's a good one.

Michael, if it weren't for the corrupt, gold-plated special deals for the public employee class, your paycheck and mine would both have less taken out of them.

I trust that you would like that.

Micheal, don't you realize that you are a vital cog in the evil machine that is out to destroy the nation. You and all the other leaches in the fire dept, government workers and teachers unions are trying to rob America. You should do what you do for less and you should be happy to even have a job.

"Last time I looked at my pay stub I was paying just as much as everybody else who works."

Yep, that's exactly the point. And what will you get back in terms of pension and health coverage? A lot more than I will, who is paying just as much as you.

See the problem? You and I pay the same, but only you get the benefit. People shouldn't be grumpy about that?

This has been around for some time, I believe it is known as "soak the rich". With time,the definition of "rich" changes.

"the public employee class" Today's Boston Herald notes all the Mass Pike toll takers making over $100,000. As I recall, union work rules allow them to steal $200 a day. This because of a rule that they cannot be investigated for a shortfall of less than $200 a day.

www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0204some_toll_takers_raking_in_100g/srvc=home&position=1

"See the problem? You and I pay the same, but only you get the benefit. People shouldn't be grumpy about that?"

Michael's cut and paste response will be that private sector compensation is "too low" (because of the CEOs or something...) and that we should be focusing on bringing private sector wages up rather than his own wages down. His conclusion then being that the only way to correct this "market failure" (gross progressive misuse of the term) is through government central planning.

His evidence that private sector wages are too low? He personally thinks they are.

His evidence that the market-based compensation is flawed? People he personally doesn't value, like Britney Spears, earn lots of money.

His evidence that his own salary is fair and sustainable? He personally thinks it is.

In other words, enlightened despotism, philosopher kings, authoritarianism, call it what you will.

I'm aware that I'm in the enemy camp, however, your contention that public union contracts are "corrupt and gold plated," is wrong, unsubstantiated and evidence of a brainwashed public whose opinions have gone unchecked far too long.

There is zero evidence of corruption in any public contracts. Negotiations follow the letter of the law, and if you don't like it, you are in the wrong country. We all have rights, and we all follow the law, and to make claims that my compensation is dirty because you say it is has gone on long enough.

The opinions expressed here concerning the nature of you fellow human beings is pathetic. People are intrinsically good, and honest, and want what is best for everybody. If I had to spend a minute inside the soul of the depressed, cynical and just plain rotten commentators here I'd call it quits.

And I happen to like Britney Spears

Michael, are you not a big fan of generalizations? "your contention", "The opinions expressed here"

"People are intrinsically good, and honest, and want what is best for everybody."

Actually, that's not true. The opposite is actually true. Intrinsically, people look out for themselves. It's a learned behavior to look out for others.

Ever been stuck somewhere and needed help and watched as people either walked or drove by? I wouldn't say that everyone wants what's best for everyone.

I'm definitely in the enemy camp. I stop and help people. And the people I choose to spend my time with do the same.

Thanks for helping make my point.

Corruption doesn't just come in the form of illegality and bribery, Michael. It can be anything that subverts open, conscientious, and impartial government. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" deals are a form of corruption, and your contract is the poisoned fruit of those backdoor dealings. The arbitration system that rubber stamps unsustainable yearly compensation increases is also completely immoral and broken, i.e., corrupt. The problems inherent in the system are immediately obvious to anyone who understands how arbitrators are selected and reselected over time.

People aren't inherently good or evil. They are inherently just people and then act certain ways because of their biology, experiences, and environment. When we set up an environment with all the wrong incentives, it becomes a major problem. Actually, I don't fault anyone for simply responding to incentives. I fault those who created the incentives in the first place.

michael,
Facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that there are plenty of folks ready, willing and able to do your job, and most public employment jobs, for half the pay and benefits.
Understandably, they have a tough time rationalizing overpaying so much in such difficult times. It is something that has been building for years, and we are at the tipping point.
As if that wasn't bad enough, additionally we see your comrades gaming the system to retire with unearned benefits via that latest little scam of asking for a demotion so they can then retire with a better COLA - that none of us get.
When those clowns try to claim they are going to be paid less - for what one month - they must think we are really stupid and that is all the more galling.
Funny how they both have retired now. Like that wasn't their plan all along.
Face it, michael, their is plenty of good reason for the outrage against you and your coworkers and it is not going away any time soon. It is only growing as the microscope focuses in on all the reasons for why we are in such dire straits.

I've been hearing this for twenty years, nothing has changed for a reason. You are all full of it. Contracts are negotiated, we get paid. Colas are everywhere, social security, private company pensions included.

My guess is I'll still be hearing about the end of the world and bankruptcy and the collapse of the free market economy twenty years from now.

If the economy collapses, we'll all be in the same boat.

Michael, you miss the entire point of the article and repeat the same old reckless fallacies that led to our current crisis.

Nothing is a problem until it is a problem.
There is no collapse until there is a collapse.
Nothing ever changes until it changes.

Read The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb. Your complacency and blind trust is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

Consider: the housing market was completely solvent until it was completely insolvent.

Everything is catching up with Rhode Island NOW. There are no more political tomorrows for these issues to be dealt with.

Michael finds it convenient to ignore the system corruption of powerful, well-financed union bosses giving campaign money and other favors to elected officials in exchange for state laws that mandate exactly the kinds of "benefits" that are "negotiated" in a completely unfair process.

Let's remove the entire section of RI general law that creates the "closed shop" system and allow employers including the state to hire union and non-union employees on an equal basis. When the public sector unions are forced to compete on a fair ground, then we'll see what a fairly negotiated contract looks like.

Until then, bleating about "negotiated contracts" in a system that we all know is corruptly manipulated in favor of the unions is dishonest, Michael.

michael,
When Rhode Island goes bust, there are no fences keeping people in. Those that can will leave. Those that cannot will remain to be further extorted in an attempt to make good on your pensions and healthcare.
Just what do you imagine is the demographic profile of those you will be left to depend on to support the pensions you have been promised?

I'll have taken my money to North Carolina.

You'll be left to the mercy of the City of Providence and the State of Rhode Island with its' third world charm.

You want to bet we'll be in the same boat?

Sie ist anchorrising goofballs so voraussagbar. Justin wirft das rote Fleisch aus und Sie essen Burschen es auf. Vielen Dank Michael, aus Ihrem Grund Erwiderungen.

Mike Cappelli,

Actually you would be better off in South Carolina which is ranked by Kiplinger.com as one of the 10-most tax friendly states for retirees than in North Carolina.

Also North Carolina is ranked # 5 most corrupt state in nation by “The Daily Beast.com” 2010 poll with South Carolina ranked #9 and Rhode Island #27 out of 50 states (Tennessee is #1 corrupt state).

According to the New York Times that did 3 different corruption polls based on guilty officials, guilty per capita and journalist perception in 2008 North Carolina ranked #17, #36 and #26 compared to South Carolina rankings #33, 43 and #22 and Rhode Island #49, #34 and #1 (according the 3 polls Florida is #1 or District of Columbia is #1 or Rhode Island is #1): nytimes.com/2008/12/14/weekinreview/14marsh.html?_r=1

Bob,

Re: "elite ruling class." That's part of a quotation from somebody else, but I'd say, at the very least, that one can include those well-to-do folks who never find cause to seek employment outside of government. One could arguably include the broader field of rich and disconnected.

Michael,

The corruption is intrinsic and legal. Unions not only have a role in negotiations, they also have a role in electoral politics. That is, not only can they negotiate as a group for their contractual desires, they can work to elect the people who sit on the other side of the table. That's corruption.

The state's teachers' unions have put a giant explanation point on the problem by stacking the Board of Regents, meaning that they now have a powerful role in negotiations, in electing the people with whom they'll be negotiation, and determining the policies that negotiations must address.

Nice to see your true colors showing, David S.

Perhaps nobody told you that the image on the cover of Jonah Goldberg's book wasn't meant as a role model.

Justin,

Look at my comments to Mike Cappelli.

The State of Rhode Island is nominated for the “Sainthood Award” when it comes to government corruption compared to other states according to the actual numbers. Not by one poll but by 2 separate polls covering 4 different ways looking at the available supporting data.

The only people that seem to think Rhode Island government, unions (by the way RI in a minor player when it comes to unions) and the state as a whole is the most corrupt state in the nation are journalist and Anchor Rising readers/commenters.

All this talk about alleged corruption does a disservice to the state image, its people and the ability to attract out of state business into the state.

Ken - those numbers mean nothing. I don't think the fact that we have a lack of political corruption convictions will come as a surprise to anyone. We have a politically connected AG's office that won't even go after the blatantly corrupt Central Falls mayor and solicits political contributions from applicants for prosecutor jobs. We also have very few politicians per capita, in case you've forgotten.

Your baseless assertion that Rhode Island is a "minor player" when it comes to unions is laughable. RI teachers unions are the envy of even the MA teachers unions. Their power is practically unmatched in other states.

Dan,

I did not create those numbers or the polls but have to defer to the New York Times and The Daily Beast who collected the information and produced the 4 studies of the information 2008 to 2010 to account for the rankings and state placements.

As far as Rhode Island, unionization and my belief that Rhode Island is a minor player according to: Best and Worst States (which uses Bureau of Labor Standards data says it best: blog.bestandworststates.com/2010/02/06/state-unionism-rankings-and-jobs.aspx

Rhode Island is ranked as one of the 5 bottom seabed dwellers (actual ranking out of 5 is #3) “Worst States For Employment and Union Participation” in the nation.

Nationwide Rhode Island is ranked #7 in 2009 for union participation at 18.7%.

The top 5 unionized 2009 states in the nation are New York, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington and Michigan in that order.

Like I indicated all this continued talk about how corrupt Rhode Island is does a great disservice to the state, population and those private business that would move into the state bolstering the workforce moving Rhode Island out of recession.

Dan you can personally discount the facts all you want and assert factual information presented by others is “baseless assertion” but when the numbers are in and the actual written reports and polls are published by reportable sources its case closed!

"We have a politically connected AG's office that won't even go after the blatantly corrupt Central Falls mayor and solicits political contributions from applicants for prosecutor jobs."

Dan, are you talking about the current AG or the prior? Because that first item is the perfect description of Patrick Lynch's handling of the CF board up scandal - Patrick Lynch, who redefined "recuse" to mean, "if it's one of my buddies, I ain't investigating, no matter how bad the whole thing stinks".

Maybe the low conviction rate speaks more to a lack of enforcement than a lack of corruption.

Max Diesel,

How do you adjust for the 4 different ways the two studies looked at the data from 2008 to 2010?

Each one provides a different outcome except for pre conceived perception of the journalist!

Ken, you don't even know what the studies you are citing mean. A "unionism" ranking has nothing to do with how powerful they are politically. I work with BLS very closely in my job and they are a joke anyway. I know you have some kind of autistic obsession with numbers and rankings that goes beyond this issue and somehow relates everything back to Hawaii, but you can't just vomit up some "study," interpret it how you want, and expect me to be impressed.

Why can't he? Everybody else around here does.

"The corruption is intrinsic and legal. Unions not only have a role in negotiations, they also have a role in electoral politics. That is, not only can they negotiate as a group for their contractual desires, they can work to elect the people who sit on the other side of the table. That's corruption."

What do you suggest, Justin? Take away the right to vote when you join a union, or take away the right to join a union. Sounds like a place I'd want to live.

There is nothing corrupt about my compensation. Nothing. I'm no longer entertaining the notion that I'm somehow complicit in some big scheme to fleece the taxpayer. You have lost me through the relentless unsubstantiated accusations, cleverly disguised, yet accusations still that I am corrupt through my support and involvement with Local 799.

It's hardly a new revelation that I don't think public-sector workforces should be permitted to unionize.

"What do you suggest, Justin? Take away the right to vote when you join a union, or take away the right to join a union. Sounds like a place I'd want to live."

Enact "right to work" to get rid of mandatory bargaining units or prohibit public employee unionization. Simple, common sense solutions, really. It's worked wonders for other states. VA, where I live now, has right to work, very low corruption, balanced budgets, and excellent public services like education and police. Not a coincidence.

michael,
If you seriously think that you are going to receive the money you think you are right now, you are going to be severely disappointed. The reason is not because people don't want to give it to you, it is merely going to be impossible.
The numbers just don't work. You need to know that. The sooner you recognize that, the better prepared you will be.
There are two ways out of the debilitating mess that has been created. One is bankruptcy, the other is to inflate our way out. Bankruptcy, while once considered impossible, is very much on the table being discussed. Not long ago, the mere discussion was heresy. That should tell you something. Still, I don't think that will be the first option. I believe inflating our way out will be the way they choose. Who is they? The federal government, who will ultimately be called upon to back your pension. Yours and every other union/politician corrupted pension. You see michael, it's been very easy for cowardly politicians to promise you a great pension when you retire in 20 years to grab your vote today. They knew damn well they won't be around when the bill comes due. But, they always knew the bill would come due. That's where we are today.
Unbelievably, given the measly returns on investment that pension plans have returned over the last ten years, most of them still use a rate of return of 8+% or more. Do you realize that the S&P 500 average return is about zero for the last 12 years? Would you believe that the return for the Japanese stock market, the Nikkei 225, for 20 years (1990 - 2010) is about negative 75%; as in -75%? Their index went from 39,000 to 10,000.
Using an implied return of just 6% for pension funds is more devastating than we even know today.
That leaves what I believe is the number one option - inflate our way out. Drive inflation up, have yields around 12-15%, yet pay pensions that even with their COLA's will be in much cheaper dollars. Trust me michael, one or the other is going to happen. You will not be getting what you think you are. Start planning and tell your comrades to do the same. The numbers simply do not work.

I'm just a dumb fireman. They told me I could get out after 20 years with half my pay. I've got it in writing, backed by law. I'll let them figure out the numbers.

And if it doesn't work, I've got plan B. The C. Then D. I'm not worried.

"It's hardly a new revelation that I don't think public-sector workforces should be permitted to unionize."

Posted by Justin Katz at February 5, 2011 10:47 AM

Sez it all folks. This grassroots thing, the tea party thing, this conception of the individual ( Do not tread on me)does not extend to people who work in the schools, libraries, fire stations, police stations. The key phrase is 'should be permitted'. That indicates that you want to regulate and legislate workers. Period. You can put the public in front of it but that is what you are saying- regulate those public sector bastard workers. Allow regulation to affect the worker's playing field.

Dan,

You said; “I know you have some kind of autistic obsession with numbers and rankings that goes beyond this issue and somehow relates everything back to Hawaii, but you can't just vomit up some "study," interpret it how you want, and expect me to be impressed.”

Nowhere in any of my comments have I mentioned the State of Hawaii except in the top 5 unionized states rankings.

The argument was how corrupt the State of Rhode is based on the unions and I was just pointing out the State of Rhode Island is not that corrupt as implied and unions play a smaller role in the state than some people think and I brought up 2 studies by two different entities that looked at available data 4 different ways and Rhode Island should get the “Sainthood Award”!

If you can’t stomach the results then that is you problem Dan. Go collect all the numbers and data and publish your own study to fit your agenda!

But now that you mention it Dan, its 82 degrees and sunny today, I swim in the ocean every day at free beaches with free parking, I only have to pay $300 property tax a year, no car property tax, no winter heating bills or purchasing winter clothing, shoveling snow and I am exempted from State of Hawaii income tax.

ADDEMDUM:

The above entry was not made by Dab but by Ken posted again.

Dan,

You said; “I know you have some kind of autistic obsession with numbers and rankings that goes beyond this issue and somehow relates everything back to Hawaii, but you can't just vomit up some "study," interpret it how you want, and expect me to be impressed.”

Nowhere in any of my comments have I mentioned the State of Hawaii except in the top 5 unionized states rankings.

The argument was how corrupt the State of Rhode is based on the unions and I was just pointing out the State of Rhode Island is not that corrupt as implied and unions play a smaller role in the state than some people think and I brought up 2 studies by two different entities that looked at available data 4 different ways and Rhode Island should get the “Sainthood Award”!

If you can’t stomach the results then that is you problem Dan. Go collect all the numbers and data and publish your own study to fit your agenda!

But now that you mention it Dan, its 82 degrees and sunny today, I swim in the ocean every day at free beaches with free parking, I only have to pay $300 property tax a year, no car property tax, no winter heating bills or purchasing winter clothing, shoveling snow and I am exempted from State of Hawaii income tax.

DavidS

Don't you think it is funny that Justin who loathes what he calls identity politics slices and dices us into his four convenient categories;

1-The public employee union class

2-The entitled/welfare class

3-The elite ruling class

4-The rest of us who are paying dearly to support #s 1, 2 and 3

If anyone tried to divide the U.S. using race or income to drive a political argument Justin would go ballistic.
I also have to chuckle at how elastic the word "elite" has become. In nearly all other applications other than describing a politician it is used in the most positive sense. Talk about an elite military group and all the patriots go ramrod stiff and snap off crisp hand salutes just above their moist eyes. ( Except BobN whose hand involuntarily jerks straight away from the body and rises as if to attempt to block the rays of a rising sun) Businesses use the word in their names all the time. But only when it comes to politics and government is the word spit out with obvious disgust. Interesting, No?

Aloha, Ken.

The meaning of "elite",like the meaning of "gay"has undergone some changes.
I think elite is frequently being used to describe self important hermetic cabals like the Sheldon Whitehouse/Lincoln Chafee social set or the academic circles at certain "leading"institutions.
Also the glitterati of the entertainment world,although most of those jerks are just show dogs for the real power players,since most of them are drug soaked human wreckage.Not all,but enough.
Outsiders certainly can attain power,but they are never totally free of the control nets thrown out by the "aristocracies"of family entitlement and intellectual dictatorship.

Joe B

Would you consider Bill Clinton and Barak Obama and Jimmy Carter members of the "elite" class?

Would the Bush family qualify as an elite group and does Rush Limbaugh fit the profile of a drug soaked human wreckage?

David, you are so full of BS. What we have today is regulation that requires public sector employees to be unionized. But it seems you are find with that regulation, because it fits your political agenda that of your political allies.

When de-unionization of the public sector puts the people, who do not have a concentration of money and paid political operatives such as the unions have, on a level playing field in negotiations with government employees, that will be the fair situation. What we have today is fundamentally unfair and systemically corrupt.

You can try to deny it, but your bleats are hollow and ever-more feeble.

Wow-good questions from the left.
let's see-Clinton-NO-clear enough?Clinton came up from Redneck poverty and made it own his own.
I may not like the fact thaat he forced himself upon women,but otherwise,whether I agreed with him or not,he was a tough politician and probably the best campaigner we've seen.
He treated veterans well,maybe out of a sense of guilt at having been evasive.(WE're the same exact age-the WAR loomed).
Obama-not elitist in any classical sense.
However,both of the above courted elitists.
Jimmy Carter-part of the southern elite.
Rush Limbaugh is a drug soaked a**hole.
WHEN have I referenced him?
I have had stronger painkillers than he did.I accepted them for EXACTLY as long as I really needed them and not an hour more.If anyone here wants to call me a liar on that,bring proof,there's none.
Fact is,I'd sooner deal with pain than be woozy and constipated.
I went through 8 years of intermittent severe pain and vomiting with NO pain meds.
They finally found the problem and did major surgery to relieve it.
Trouble is,I'm so limited now,I can't call anyone out for a swing.
So you leftists have your answer.And zero invective.

The Bushes-ELITISTIS.
McCain -NO.The military elite send their sons and daughters into battle-a totally different kind of elite-an elite willing to endure personal sacrifice-I really want this argument boys and girls.
BTW I'm from the "little people"who only went to war,put shoes on your feet,and taught reading.So there ya go Phil and David S.But no hard feelings.

Posted by David S:
"Sie ist anchorrising goofballs so voraussagbar. Justin wirft das rote Fleisch aus und Sie essen Burschen es auf. Vielen Dank Michael, aus Ihrem Grund Erwiderungen."

"zwei Sachen, welche die Leute nie sehen sollten, sind die Herstellung von Gesetzen und die Herstellung von sausage" (I suppose sausage would be red meat)

Joe,no one really cares about your history with painkillers or if you are constipated or woozy. I once had a swollen testicles but only took required amount of painkillers. If anyone says different then prove it tough guy. I was more thinking about rushes addiction to his viagra medicine which it seems like you must be taking alot of as well.How else could you get to be such a hard on all the time.

Good one Warrington. I have made sausage, but I can not claim to know about the other.

3R-you sound like a complete a**hole,you know that?
Swollen testicles?Did you have worms?
I've never tried Viagra,because as of yet,I haven't needed it.
Any other gems of wisdom?You liberals are so easy to get sputtering with idiotic rage.
You and David S are in a race to the bottom for sheer stupidity around here.

Thanks Joe right back at you. As for sputtering with idiotic rage that is exactly as I would have described your latest bunch if dispatches.seriously though why were you rambling on about painkillers and asking people to prove it.talk about sputtering and idiotic.

Obama-not elitist in any classical sense.
However,both of the above courted elitists.

That's one of Joe's pearls of wisdom. Thank you for answering, Joe. I wasn't trying to make a partisan point because I easily could have included Nixon and Ford and Johnson. The point is that this new tea party inspired obsession with elitism is actually the same old anti intellectualism dressed up as populism. If you have experience and knowledge it means that you must be corrupt in their minds. Now Joe adds to this kind of attitude by writing that while one is not an "elitist" they are not in the clear if they have "courted" any at any time. " Have you now or have you ever associated with any known "Elitists"? Have you ever attended any meetings where "Elitists" were present? Keep it up Joe and we'll have to start calling you Joe McBernstein.

3R-is that the best you can do?You're a joke.
Phil-elitists have access to money,and even more,influence where it's needed.
I wasn't making a comparison to communism,but you chose bring up McCarthyism-that's not worth answering.
Obama was given access to elitist resources,much like Clinton was,after he showed himself to be a serious contender.That was my point.
There was a defection of elitists from Hillary Clinton at a critical period in the campaign.
BTW call me whatever blows your skirts up-I as always consider the source,and your opinion of me is worth nothing in my book.

Phil-it's nice to know you have such trust in "intellectuals".
I don't include legitimate sientists in that category,but more the sociopolitical fools infesting the universities.a lot of them just don't eist in the real world with their endowed "chairs".
I guess you admire the Peter Singers of the world.

More sputtering idiotic rage from Joe the phone caller. Perhaps you could still explain your out of left feild reference to painkillers and the fact that you adamantly stated that you only took the required amount. You are are true American hero

3R-I'm answering your retarded comment because it's fun.
I made the point because Limbaugh holds himself up as some kind of exemplar of a great American,but he got addicted to prescription painkillers.You have to wonder if it's really necessary.
I have known too many people it's happened to-those drugs are like a third rail-useful,but potentially a serious problem.
I didn't want to get to the point when the drugs are no longer needed,just wanted.
I had to attend resident drug training courses at the DEA Academy in Quantico as part of my transition training from INS to the Federal drug task force and I learned a lot about the effects of medicinally prescribed pain medication.
It wasn't me who brought up Limbaugh's drug issues to begin with,was it,you ass?

Still sputtering and raging huh Joe. It is still very unclear as to why you felt the need to defend yourself from allegations that no one was making. Perhaps you have confused your posts on this site with the ones you post somewhere else. That last story that you babbled on another section here about the wife being offered to you was funny though completely irrelevant.

In my industry, I've watched employees eager for layoffs, who game the system to get back some of what they've invested in it. One contractor recently expressed his disapproval of that tendency, calling it immoral to leach of [sic] the system and pass the buck on to him. I was actually surprised at my own disagreement.

Well, at least we have a frank confession as to who the mooches really are. Very much like Rand, btw, who seemed not to mind collectivism when it became clear she needed assistance.
www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits%2C_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/?page=1

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." Posted by: Russ at February 7, 2011 1:14 PM

3R-I KNOW the "wife"story was irrelevant,but it was so bizarre I never forgot it.
My buddy had been in the service for 14 years and was an E-3,which kinda tells you he didn't much give a damn.
There was a serious point-drunk driving resulting in death and injury doesn't need a bad motive-but the loss is same regardless.
We might also reference f**kin' cellphone use while driving.I still find it hard to believe people TEXT behind the wheel.What insanity!!

Once again, Russ uses the technique of telling a fraction of the story in order to twist it into a lie. Here is the other side of the story. Note that Rand's quote is from 1966, eight years before Rand began receiving Social Security payments. Never trust a Leftist to tell the truth, even when the small kernel of fact he uses to construct his lie is verifiable.

quoted from freemarketmojo.com/?p=15505

Yes, Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that’s okay.

by Bevan Sabo

Instaputz reports that “Howard Roark weeps.” because of an article attacking Ayn Rand for receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits (Rand, quite obviously, being opposed to any form of government welfare).

Critics of Social Security and Medicare frequently invoke the words and ideals of author and philosopher Ayn Rand, one of the fiercest critics of federal insurance programs. But a little-known fact is that Ayn Rand herself collected Social Security. She may also have received Medicare benefits.

An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.

Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim.

Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. O’Connor received $2,943 between December 1974 and his death in November 1979.

There’s much more to the article, but the facts above are enough. And besides, I’m here to dispute the assessment, not the evaluation. Rand’s receipt of welfare benefits in no way diminishes her status as a champion of individual liberty. I quote from an interview with Rand for a 1966 issue of The Objectivist newsletter:

It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

Patia Stephens, the author of the article in question, includes the above quote in the article, but doesn’t address the logic of it. It’s like a criminal prosecutor stating that he’s aware of the defendants alibi, but never addressing it. Where’ s the problem with Rand’s logic?

Note that Rand's quote is from 1966, eight years before Rand began receiving Social Security payments.

Let's just say she was against it before she was for it. Funny how the prospect of financial ruin changes your perspective on that kind of thing.

In the post above, Russ displays his inability to read plain text with any comprehension.

Russ makes the same old idiotic argument I hear again and again from progressives that I shouldn't use public transportation, fire protection, schools, roads, etc. or I am some kind of hypocrite.

If I don't use them and buy private alternatives then I am paying TWICE. It is not anti-libertarian to use services for which we have already paid, in fact, that's what we are advocating all along. I will GLADLY stop using them as soon as I have my tax dollars refunded and am given a choice in the matter, but something tells me that the progressives won't be for that.

People like Russ think that if one is in favor of government operating within the prameters originally contemplated,then one is "anti-government".
Not true at all.I am for good government doing what it should and not more than it should.
Somwhere between anarchy and oppression.
If Russ had been around in the 60's he might've been anti-government a la Bill Ayers.

Russ makes the same old idiotic argument I hear again and again from progressives that I shouldn't use public transportation, fire protection, schools, roads, etc. or I am some kind of hypocrite.

Actually, I argue that if your idea of freedom is unregulated capitalism and unrestricted corporate exploitation of workers you should consider moving to a nice dictatorship somewhere. In fact, Dubai is beautiful this time of year and you have a permanent subclass of people with nearly no rights to get in the way of the free market.

Russ-if they invent a time machine I'll leave you off in 1963.
I'll go back to 1948.

I'll go back to 1948.
Posted by joe bernstein at February 8, 2011 4:10 PM

Let me guess why...

The first monkey astronaut, Albert I, was launched into space from White Sands, New Mexico on June 11, 1948.

"I will GLADLY stop using them as soon as I have my tax dollars refunded and am given a choice in the matter..."

Would that you guys cared half as much about the bloated military complex or the growing police state powers as you do screwing over the poor, your neighbors, small children, etc.