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.