“There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days — the conviction that ideas matter.” –Ayn Rand
In the past couple of days, my story, “Ayn Rand, Hypocrite? Legendary opponent of “welfare state” received Social Security and probably Medicare,” has received nearly 9,000 page views. Although I’m sad that I couldn’t find a publisher for this piece (and figure out how to launch my floundering freelance career), I feel vindicated by the fact that so many people obviously find this a newsworthy topic. My instincts weren’t wrong, after all.
I’ve uploaded PDF documentation of the official responses from Social Security and Medicare to my Freedom of Information requests. (Click to download.) The latter is, as I wrote in the article, inconclusive. So far, the only physical evidence that Ayn Rand received Medicare is in the interview Scott McConnell conducted with Evva Pryor. The Medicare headquarters in Baltimore also had at least some computerized information, but they wouldn’t share it with me. I had hoped that a bigger news organization would have had the clout to help me dig deeper.
I spent many hours making and following up on FOI requests and researching and writing the story. I haven’t earned one cent for my efforts, but I’m glad to see the story get out there into the “marketplace of ideas.”
Finally, I’d just like to add that my goal was not to demonize Ayn Rand, but simply to tell the truth.
A few more quotes from Ayn Rand supporters:
“The basic principle behind Social Security is that individuals have a right to unearned retirement income. To pay for these unearned benefits, the government seizes money from workers and transfers it to the elderly. This is a perverse injustice. Why should a twenty year old who is struggling to make ends meet have to finance someone else’s retirement? Why is it parasitical for a young person to live on the dole, but an inalienable right if he waits until he’s 65? Why should those who conscientiously save for retirement be forced to sacrifice a chunk of their income to support those who were not as responsible?”
“Some claim that without Social Security the streets would be lined with senior citizens unable to pay for their homes or their food. But this fantasy ignores the fact that, before Social Security, there was no epidemic of starving old people. Individuals planned and saved for their own retirement. Those few who genuinely couldn’t support themselves relied on their families and on private charity — they did not demand the government reach into other people’s pockets to provide them with goodies.
“Social Security should not be saved — it should be abolished.”
– Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a 2007 news release, “Should We Save Social Security?”
“This viciously patronizing system regards people as essentially feeble-minded and helpless, unable to anticipate the requirements of old age. The government, therefore, must save them from themselves. How? By not allowing anyone to make his own decisions. And the tragic irony is that Washington, the epitome of blind short-sightedness, is ‘rescuing’ us from our presumed stupidity — with a scheme so ruinous that only a fool would willingly participate in it.”
– Robert W. Tracinski, former senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, in “Fully Privatize Social Security.”
“The ideas we’re promoting — just to pick some of them are: The individual’s own happiness is the purpose of his life; you should not serve the community, or the lame, the halt, the blind. You don’t have to serve migrants, you don’t have to serve any special interest group — whether it be a racial group or an economic group. You don’t have to serve ANYBODY. You serve yourself!”
– Scott McConnell, former director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute, in a 1998 radio interview.
I don’t see how anyone could possibly interpret anything Rand did as hypocritical.
She was forced to put into this ponzi scheme, and given her millions of books sold, she surely put significantly more money into the system than the $11k she took out.
Her moral objection to social security is not at odds with her taking back SOME of the money she put in. Forcing the government to pay back as much of the money they forced out of her pocket, is exactly aligned with her philosophy.
I am assuming the social worker assigned to her also knew of these millions of books sold, but obviously Ms. Rand was having some trouble because the social worker saw the need to sign her up for social security.
Unless it is your opinion that this social worker was just signing up everyone for SS and Medicare without regard to need?
Astonishing that even given this evidence of blatant hypocrisy, Rand apologists refuse to acknowledge what’s right in front of them.
Rand, who mocked the science linking smoking to lung cancer while she puffed away like a chimney, predictably got lung cancer. Despite her millions of books sold, she lacked the necessary money f=to fight the disease (probably as a result of her massive spending on maintaining a coterie of acolytes/yes men). She then dipped into the government handouts she claimed to revile under an assumed name! This is standard right-wing “do as I say, not as I do” behavior. When it’s theoretical, Randians are certain that lesser beings should be left to suffer. When it’s suddenly very real, well, let’s make an exception just this once.
Given that it took this long to see the light of day, I’d say rand had her cake and ate it. Hopefully people who were unfortunate enough to read her books during a formative phase in their lives and have suffered subsequent delusion since will see this for what it is: an eye-opening revelation about a person whose mean streak and complete lack of empathy caught up with her in her old age, as she was infirm. A good and decent society owes a modicum of comfort and care to those who have less. Ayn Rand’s words might disagree, but her actions do not.
Please stop with the “Rand was FORCED to put money into social security!!!!”
As others have more eloquently stated: No, she was not forced. No one is “forced” to put money in. She wasn’t forced to live here in the U.S. and use infrastructure paid for by others, either. She compromised her ideals in order to live a workable life – just like 99.9999% of the rest of us. She just didn’t have the grace to admit it, poor thing.
And given her illness, she likely took much more out through Medicare than she could have possibly put in. So unless there’s evidence that she figured out exactly how much money she put in and received back that amount and no more, I don’t want to hear any more about 11K, either.
I am a progressive liberal and, therefore, not a follower of Ayn Rand’s beliefs, but if I want to use this information in my discussions with others, I would like to have “proof” that is a little more substantial. My concern is with the statement of social security benefits… it is simply type written on a plain piece of white paper, no letterhead. Anyone could request info from Social Security, and then type a piece of paper and place it in front of the envelope. That is not actual proof of the envelope’s contents. Is there anything on letterhead, even a cover letter from the social security office? I don’t want to doubt this information, in fact, I want to believe it.
Kim: I think you are wise to be skeptical. As I’ve watched this story take off in the past week, I’ve been surprised by how people just accept everything they read. Some of the facts have been twisted in translation, too.
Unfortunately, this is the best I can do. You would be amazed at how hard it is to get information out of the government, despite the Freedom of Information Act. The Social Security document I posted here was sent in response to my request for hard-copy documentation. I too was surprised at its lack of formality.
Here’s part of the email exchange I had with the SS rep (but of course you have no way of knowing I’m not making it up):
—
From: Patia Stephens
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Tye, Patti
Subject: Re: Your Inquiry
Hello Patti,
Thank you for getting in touch. I am a freelance journalist requesting information on whether Social Security and/or Medicare benefits were paid to the following two deceased individuals:
1. Charles O’Connor, 060-16-3105, d. Nov 1979, NY.
2. Ayn Rand, 571-32-9405, d. Mar 1982, NY.
If so, I would like to know the general dates and dollar amounts of payments made. Amounts do not need to be detailed; an average or total, if available, will suffice.
Thank you.
Patia Stephens
RE: Your Inquiry
From: “Tye, Patti”
To: Patia Stephens
Hi Patia,
I can give you the general information on these people since they are now deceased. Mr. O’Connor was entitled to Social Security benefits of 314.10 at his death; he had become entitled five years earlier with benefits at around 240.00 per month.
Ms. Rand was entitled to 933.50 at the time of her death; she had become entitled eight years earlier with benefits at around 640.00.
Both were entitled to Medicare; I have no information about Medicare benefits paid out.
Patti Tye
—
Trying to get information from Medicare was much more difficult. They lost my mailed request, kept referring me to others and repeatedly ignored my phone calls and emails. I spent months and months hounding them, only to be told they couldn’t find anything. (It was, at least, on letterhead.)
Where is the hypocrisy? Why not quote Ayn Rand herself? She speaks very clearly about social security.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
“The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. 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.” -Ayn Rand
Patia,
I think your math is wrong on total benefits. The PDF of benefits paid are not total benefits, they are the changes in monthly benefits. So Rand received way, way, more than the 11K you had mentioned in the other article.
The rate of benefits changed for various reasons, mostly due to cost of living adjustments. So, just in her last year, she received 933 PER MON from June of 81 to March of 82, not 933 in June 81 and 933 in March 82
Mike: Hmm, you may well be right. I am admittedly bad at math and don’t fully understand the SS system. I had wondered why they appeared to receive benefits some months and not others. Can anyone figure out how much they did receive?
Honestly, I really WISH I’d had a good editor for this story.
OK, I used an excel spreadsheet. She received about $52,644. I say ‘about’ since I dropped the dimes. The SSA gave you her basic benefit amount, but payments are rounded down to the lower dollar, but I forget which year that started. The benefit increases in January of a year are re-calculations of her basic benefit to take into account additional earnings. The benefit increases in June of the year is due to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for that year.
I also say ‘about’ since I am not sure exactly whether she received all benefits for months prior to age 70, since she may have received earnings which could have affected her monthly benefits. Also, you don’t count the March ’82 payment since she did not live throughout the month.
I used to be a Claims Representative for the Social Security Administration.
Wow, nice work! Thank you.
She was “forced”. She moved to this country before social security was instituted.
So basically you claim that anyone who stays in the country isn’t “forced” to do anything? My options are either “put in and don’t complain, or leave the country”?
Isn’t that the same false choice as the idiot right wingers who say “love it or leave it”?
Patia, you said..”As I’ve watched this story take off in the past week, I’ve been surprised by how people just accept everything they read.”"
Not me. Something is fishy here I think. The supposed SS office employee, Patti Tye, said this..”Mr. O’Connor was entitled to Social Security benefits of 314.10 at his death; he had become entitled five years earlier with benefits at around 240.00 per month. Ms. Rand was entitled to 933.50 at the time of her death; she had become entitled eight years earlier with benefits at around 640.00.”"
According to your document from SS, the starting benefits do not match the numbers from Ms. Tye’s statement. Frank O’Connors benefits started at $93.80, not $240 as Ms. Tye said. And Ayn Rand’s benefits started at $350.90, not $640.
What’s also surprising is that Frank O’Connors benefits DOUBLED in 6 months from 12/74 to 5/75. OK, maybe he filed first and then subsequently claimed part of her benefits as a spouse can do. But then, Ayn Rand’s benefits also DOUBLED in 5 short years, from 6/76 to 6/81. I think her case is really surprising because either she massively paid in SS contributions to get her benefit check to double in such a short time span, or the document is a fraud.
I come at the discussion as a Christian Minister.. I strongly believe Ayn Raqnd’s ideas are at the core of our societies problems today.. This Atheist,” believer of Greed, rejected the central ideas of the Christian Faith..
No amount of cover-up of Any Rand’s ideas, beliefs can change these facts .. No Golded Rule for Ms. Rand!!
WCH
Jeff – As Rand was born overseas and moved to the US of her own volition, she technically DID have a choice. However, once she took residence here, she had to learn to live in a democracy. As a democracy, the laws are drawn up on the behalf of it’s citizens by their duly elected officials. There are many laws that one person may disagree with, but for the most part our democracy is majority rule. Rand DID have the option of doing what thousands of Americans have done before her and protest, organize and even sue the government to have her grievances addressed. She was not entitled to cherry pick the laws that were to her benefit and eschew others that she disliked. Don’t like it? Do something about it. But to whine and connive that one is some sort of victim of the system is self-indulgent and lazy. Maybe that is how the bourgeois did it back in St. Petersburg, but this is America. If Miss Alisa Rosenbaum detested democracy so much and wanted freedom her way, maybe she should have stayed home.
Bec -
You establish a very dangerous principle: that of unlimited democracy rule (or alternative that of unchecked government power). If the government does something wrong, that is the government’s fault and liability. No one is morally bound to follow it – ever heard of “I was just following orders?” Interestingly, the U.S. government propounded this very same moral principle – that there are morals that transcend law – at the Nuremberg trials. The U.S. government also said that every citizen has a duty to resist immoral law. An amazing thing for a government to maintain.
In any case, all of the recent Internet hate on Rand is preposterous. As any number of people have pointed out, Rand said publicly that any person who opposes statist program should recoup what was taken from them. She said this before age 65, and she did what she said she would. No hypocrisy, no hiddenness.