Pigford, the NY Times, and the Obama administration
The Pigford case and the extensive fraud it almost certainly has spawned in its wake have been the topics of a great many posts on the blogospheric right for years. But now the New York Times has (very surprisingly) taken note and written an in-depth, hard-hitting piece about it.
This is puzzling, because after all this is the NY Times we’re talking about. I wonder “why now?,” and although I don’t have the answer I’m glad it’s happening.
The entire article is well worth reading, despite its length. It demonstrates how the legal system has been twisted almost out of shape in an attempt to redress racism, to the point of obvious and widespread scamming of the government largesse. And, as usual, it’s the taxpayer—all of us, no matter what race—who pays the price.
When government discrimination in making loans to farmers only has to be alleged, not proven, in order to collect some fairly hefty sums of money, the results are going to be fairly predictable:
Accusations of unfair treatment could be checked against department files if claimants had previously received loans. But four-fifths of successful claimants had never done so. For them, “there was no way to refute what they said,” said Sandy Grammer, a former program analyst from Indiana who reviewed claims for three years. “Basically, it was a rip-off of the American taxpayers.”…
In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.
In Maple Hill, a struggling town in southeastern North Carolina, the number of people paid was nearly four times the total number of farms. More than one in nine African-American adults there received checks. In Little Rock, Ark., a confidential list of payments shows, 10 members of one extended family collected a total of $500,000, and dozens of other successful claimants shared addresses, phone numbers or close family connections.
Thirty percent of all payments, totaling $290 million, went to predominantly urban counties ”” a phenomenon that supporters of the settlement say reflects black farmers’ migration during the 15 years covered by the lawsuit. Only 11 percent, or $107 million, went to what the Agriculture Department classifies as “completely rural” counties.
A fraud hot line to the Agriculture Department’s inspector general rang off the hook. The office referred 503 cases involving 2,089 individuals to the F.B.I.
The F.B.I. opened 60 criminal investigations, a spokesman said, but prosecutors abandoned all but a few for reasons including a lack of evidence or proof of criminal intent. Former federal officials said the bar for a successful claim was so low that it was almost impossible to show criminality.
It was Congress who had extended the program so widely in 2008 (with the strong support of then-Senator Obama, and over President Bush’s veto). Shortly after becoming president Obama promised more, and in November 2010, Congress cooperated.
And then it got even bigger, because Hispanics and women wanted in on the action. As I said, please read the whole thing.
Carl K. Bond, a former Agriculture Department farm loan manager in North Carolina, who “reviewed thousands of claims over six years” (and who happens to be black) said: “I probably could have got paid. You knew it was wrong, but what could you do? Who is going to listen to you?”
An excellent question. As William A. Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection points out, when Andrew Breitbart highlighted the problem years ago he got reviled as a racist. Criticize the behavior of a person or people of color, and you’ve touched the third rail of racism and might get burned.
Or, as Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said, when he was practically alone in criticizing the program, “Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist.”
It’s ironic that so many people are saying that the fact that the Times has written this article finally “vindicates” Breitbart, because it’s certainly not as though everything published in the Times is the gospel truth. But I understand, because this is a piece that goes against the usual liberal/left party line. If the Times is saying this, as opposed to “just” Breitbart and right-wing blogs, it does give it a certain clout and credence because it makes it more difficult for the rank-and-file Times reader—the garden-variety liberal—to deny what probably happened here.
So, will someone be listening now? And, more importantly, what’s to be done about it even if there’s an audience? The money’s been paid, the claims can’t be proven or disproven, and it all could happen again.
And Obama is still president.
What’s to be done? If someone made a fraudulent claim, that is a crime isn’t it?
Steve,
As to redress: Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist. OTOH, the fear is largely unfounded. Pretty much north of 99% of the population, including the ones making the accusation, know it’s a manipulative scam. You just have to remember that everybody knows that everybody knows. Except some people don’t know that everybody knows and they keep trying.
Perhaps, when the NYT makes an admission against interest, which I hear on Law and Order is a Big Deal, it means the next time something like this comes along, resisting it will be easier.
Steve: if you read the article you’ll see why these frauds would be nearly impossible to prosecute. The way the program was set up, they didn’t need to provide any documentation for their claims. There is no way to disprove the claims, either, for almost all of them. In the aggregate it is virtually certain that huge numbers of the claims are bogus, but for each claim it would be very difficult to prove or disprove one way or the other, and to prove fraud and intent—unless, for example, the person had been out of the country for most of his/her life, or in a coma. I’m hardly exaggerating. All the person had to do was make up a story that he/she was discriminated against.
Benghazi Barry was reelected. Can’t hurt him now.
Our federal government, in the hands of Democrats, at work. Who’s surprised here? Will anything be done about it? Of course not.
Maximize redistribution of wealth, call anyone who objects a hater. Gravy Train baby.
Neo-neocon, it’s difficult to understand why you write “almost out of shape” when a government purported to “establish Justice” is instead turned to the creation of fraud? It’s just . . . that would seem on its face to be a complete inversion, in the active sense, no? Even if turning the instrumentalities of government to the creation of injustice were unintended — as a result or a consequence — it is yet the opposite of the stated Constitutional object, isn’t it? But I assume I’m missing something about your meaning there.
sdferr: the “almost” was in there because the original case, and the first cases that followed (before the program was expanded past the point of any sort of common sense or fairness), were apparently valid.
Ah, good. Which yes, I’d readily agree we can still distinguish just action from unjust action. What remains is the question whether our government can do so as well.
What might be said, here, yet won’t be said in the NYT, is that Dems and Repubs always understood that this program would produce 80%plus fraudulent claims.
Dems were buying future votes. Repubs were (pitifully) attempting to innoculate themselves from scaring away future votes.
It is rare for me to have moments in which I suspect the nation is lost, and can never be found. However, a program such as Pigford, in which Congresspersons knew it was mostly fraud, and voted for it anyway, creates a temporary moment in which I fear the nation is lost. Gone.
gcotharn: I don’t understand how anyone could look at this program, even at the outset, and not realize it would lead to tons of fraudulent claims. So I’m inclined to believe those who designed it and approved it had to be well aware of what the results would be, and it helped them get elected.
However, these were votes that Democrats would have had anyway.
“these were votes that Democrats would have had anyway”
For now, yes.
But Dems were looking to the future. 15 years from now, there might be a black Ted Cruz who runs for POTUS as a Repub. What might stop black voters from voting for the black Ted Cruz? One possibility: the memory of $1Billion which Pigford income redistributed into the pockets of black Americans.
In 1980, my grandfather made a strong pitch for me to vote for Jimmy Carter. On account of: “If it hadn’t been for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we(dirt poor farmers)’d of likely starved out back there (in the 1930s).” Once FDR saved his family, my grandfather never voted for another Republican.
“And Obama is still president.”
The Corrupt Culture that produces a Pigford is the same Corrupt Culture that produces an Obama.
My hunch is that to the extent we clean up the bureaucracy, the less likely we are to end up with horrible people like him running the country.
In ancient Rome, and even in Judaism I think, there were periodic reformations of the “Laws” and Legal Systems (think Napoleon for a more recent example).
The U.S. is in dire need of a clean up.
My solution is to fire everyone. Tomorrow. With no pensions, or unemployment or benefits or anything. Every bureaucrat that there is should be dismissed and locked out.
Then we hire back on an absolutely as-needed case by case person by person basis. 90% of government workers are leaches and tyrants. They deserve nothing. They have already milked the system for more than they are worth. They should be lucky we don’t deport them to Patagonia or something. They add almost nothing and only take or cause a drag on everyone else. The Country improves by 100% the minute we start doing things like that.
Earthquakes always start with just a tremor.
neo: “So I’m inclined to believe those who designed it and approved it had to be well aware of what the results would be, and it helped them get elected.”
It appears to me to be “reparations.” Just not called that. So, what else is new?
Once it sumit of us were good ole boys. Hats whatten we cawl harselves, good ole boys. Taint no morun. Sall gone way. New people be the good ole boys, nowen.
The motive for Pigford is the same as for immigration fraud: a near permanent good ole boy club.