A Payoff From Austerity - Investigative Reporting At The Times!

The NY Times takes a long, very critical look at Pigford v. Glickman and its aftermath:

Federal Spigot Flows as Farmers Claim Discrimination

By SHARON LaFRANIERE

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers [Pigford v. Glickman], the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

But a succession of courts — and finally the Supreme Court — had rebuffed their pleas. Instead of an army of potential claimants, the government faced just 91 plaintiffs. Those cases, the government lawyers figured, could be dispatched at limited cost.

They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.

Fraud? Is that what the Times is going to investigate? My bad - I assumed they were going to explain to us why there is not a class action suit for gay farmers.

But fraud it is. Here are some of the juicy bits:

The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.

The circumstances under which the Agriculture Dept. accessed the settlement funds is legally dubious:

The payouts pitted Mr. Vilsack and other political appointees against career lawyers and agency officials, who argued that the legal risks did not justify the costs.

Beyond that, they said it was legally questionable to sidestep Congress and compensate the Hispanic and female farmers out of a special Treasury Department account, known as the Judgment Fund. The fund is restricted to payments of court-approved judgments and settlements, as well as to out-of-court settlements in cases where the government faces imminent litigation that it could lose. Some officials argued that tapping the fund for the farmers set a bad precedent, since most had arguably never contemplated suing and might not have won if they had.

“The fund is not politically accessible, it is only legally accessible,” said David Aufhauser, the Treasury Department’s general counsel from 2001 to 2003. “Otherwise, it is a license to raid the till.”

In other words, you can't pay off special interest groups just because you hope to lose to them in court; there has to be a credible legal basis for the admission of defeat.

A 2010 settlement with Native Americans was contentious for its own reasons. Justice Department lawyers argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped the potential cost of a defeat in court. Agriculture officials said not that many farmers would file claims.

That prediction proved prophetic. Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs’ lawyers to be distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers. Two and a half years later, the groups have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist.

What is not unclear is for whom they will vote. And the lawyers will keep ther fee (less their contributions to the Democratic Party).

The first Pigford settlement was approved under Bill Clinton, with very lax standards of documentation and proof. This created a learning opportunity for Team Clinton:

John C. Coffee Jr., a Columbia Law School professor and specialist in complex litigation, said that not requiring documentary evidence “was quite unusual, but there were also special circumstances.”

Still, he said, “I don’t think they realized how much of an incentive they were creating for claims to multiply. It is a little bit like putting out milk for a kitten.

“The next night, you get 15 kittens.”

Who could have guessed?

Delton Wright, a Pine Bluff justice of the peace, recalled what happened after word of the settlement reached his impoverished region: “It just went wild. Some people took the money who didn’t even have a garden in the ground.” He added, “They didn’t make it hard at all, and that’s why people jumped on it.”

Mr. Wright, whose family owns farmland outside Pine Bluff, won his claim. So did two other applicants whose claims were virtually identical to his, with the same rounded handwriting, the same accusations of bias and similar descriptions of damages suffered.

Now 57, with his memory weakened by what he said was a recent stroke, Mr. Wright said he could not recall details of the discrimination he encountered, much less explain the apparent duplicate claims.

But Mr. Cross, the Pine Bluff lawyer, has his suspicions. “It got out of control,” said Mr. Cross, adding that he had filed about 1,500 claims, including Mr. Wright’s and the apparent duplicates. He estimated that up to 15 percent of Arkansas claims were fraudulent.

Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers’ aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers “to keep the line moving,” as one put it.

Even his own staff was complicit, Mr. Cross said; he discovered that four employees had been slipping unverified claims into stacks of papers that he signed. He did not inform the court monitor, he said, because “the damage was done.”

On two floors of the Cotton Annex building in Washington, a 300-member team from the Farm Service Agency reviewed claims before adjudicators rendered their final decisions. In recent interviews, 15 current and former Agriculture Department employees who reviewed or responded to claims said the loose conditions for payment had opened the floodgates to fraud.

“It was the craziest thing I have ever seen,” one former high-ranking department official said. “We had applications for kids who were 4 or 5 years old. We had cases where every single member of the family applied.” The official added, “You couldn’t have designed it worse if you had tried.”

Carl K. Bond, a former Agriculture Department farm loan manager in North Carolina, reviewed thousands of claims over six years.

“I probably could have got paid,” said Mr. Bond, who is black. “You knew it was wrong, but what could you do? Who is going to listen to you?”

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.”

...

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.

The first round of fraud was so successful that there was enormous pressure to continue it:

Some 66,000 claims poured in after the 1999 deadline. Noting that the government had given “extensive” notice, Judge Friedman ruled the door closed to late filers. “That is simply how class actions work,” he wrote.

But it was not how politics worked. The next nine years brought a concerted effort to allow the late filers to seek awards. Career Agriculture Department officials warned that they might be even more problematic than initial claimants: in one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed, according to the former high-ranking agency official.

President George W. Bush was unreceptive to farmers’ repeated protests. But Congress was not: legislators from both parties, including Mr. Obama as a senator in 2007, sponsored bills to grant the late filers relief.

Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign. Hilary Shelton, the N.A.A.C.P.’s chief lobbyist, said Mr. Obama’s stance helped establish him as a defender of the concerns of rural African-American communities.

And where were the critics?

Public criticism came primarily from conservative news outlets like Breitbart.com and from Congressional conservatives like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who described the program as rife with fraud. Few Republicans or Democrats supported him. Asked why, Mr. King said, “Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist.”

Lee Stranahan is a self-described liberal who writes at the Huffington Post, but he did some pieces for Breitbart on Pigford. His thoughts on the racist label as applied to Steve King are here.

For fairness and balance, let's note this cheerleading from the NY Times editors back in 2010:

Pay Up

Pigford v. Glickman has not resonated across the land like Brown v. Board of Education, but the very same history of crippling injustice is at its heart. The Pigford settlement will remain a misnomer until the nation rights this historic injustice and pays what it owes.

But Pigford is a mere prelude to the current drama. If blacks can benefit from a Federal give-away, why can't Hispanics? Why can't women? Good question:

In agreeing to the payout, the government did, for the first time, impose a greater evidentiary burden. While one major category of claimants — those who said their loan applications had been unfairly denied — remained eligible for payments of up to $50,000 without any documentation, others were required to produce written evidence that they had complained of bias at the time. The Hispanic plaintiffs were indignant.

Adam P. Feinberg, who represents some of them, said: “Once the government puts a program in place for one racial group, even if it decides it is too generous, it cannot adopt a different set of restrictions for another racial group. It’s outrageous.”

Well, yes. Equal opportunity for fraud is what makes Obama's Chicago-style government great.

The Times closes with an example of the "cottage industry" that has grown up to participate in the rip-off:

Mr. Burrell has traveled the South for years, exhorting black audiences in auditoriums and church halls to file discrimination complaints with his organization’s help, in exchange for a $100 annual membership fee.

In an interview last month, Mr. Burrell said he had dedicated his life to helping black farmers after biased federal loan officers deprived him of his land and ruined his credit. He said his organization had misled no one, and had forwarded the names of all those eligible and willing to file claims.

“I have never advocated anybody file a false claim,” he said. “I have worked almost pro bono for this cause.”

On a recent Thursday at the Greater Second Baptist Church in Little Rock, several hundred African-Americans listened intently as Mr. Burrell told them they could reap $50,000 each, merely by claiming bias. He left out the fact that black men are no longer eligible, and that black women are eligible only if they suffered gender, not racial, bias.

“The Department of Agriculture admitted that it discriminated against every black person who walked into their offices,” he told the crowd. “They said we discriminated against them, but we didn’t keep a record. Hello? You don’t have to prove it.”

In fact, he boasted, he and his four siblings had all collected awards, and his sister had acquired another $50,000 on behalf of their dead father.

She cinched the claim, he said to a ripple of laughter, by asserting that her father had whispered on his deathbed, “I was discriminated against by U.S.D.A.”

“The judge has said since you all look alike, whichever one says he came into the office, that’s the one to pay — hint, hint,” he said. “There is no limit to the amount of money, and there is no limit to the amount of folks who can file.”

He closed with a rousing exhortation: “Let’s get the judge to go to work writing them checks! They have just opened the bank vault.”

I have only one guess as to why the Times is investigating this now. In happier days, particularly the era of the Clinton surpluses when the first deal was announced, this sort of fraud seemed to victimize no one.The taxpayer? Who is that, Mitt Romney, and aren't his taxes too low anyway?

But in this age of austerity, it may have ocurred to Timesmen that money that goes to faux-farmers won't be funding Alzheimer's research or AIDS relief or pre-school education in the inner city. As choices go, Obama's choice to sprinkle these checks on those special interest group this way is hard to defend.

As to whether Team Obama can gain more votes through good government or by handing random checks to opportunists based on some mixture of ethnicity, gender and scruples, well, that depends in part on whether our watchdog press actually barks. It looks as if they might.

UPDATE: Ed at Hot Air achieves brevity:

NYT: Breitbart was right about Pigford

Comments

[peter]

Money can just be printed ad infinitum. Alzheimer's research, and AIDS relief and preschool education will just be paid for with more Wiemardollars.

[Threadkiller]

.

[Rob Crawford]

“I have worked almost pro bono for this cause.”

Note the "almost".

(Rest removed for excessive bitterness and anger.)

[henry]

Monsieur Guillotine to the courtesy phone...

[peter]

What are the chances a Times reporter will ask Obama about Pigford at the next presser?

[jimmyk]

Couldn't the NYT find some way to make this Bush's fault? They are losing their edge.

[hit and run]

I'm starting a new advocacy group.

People on the Dole for Smaller Government! (PDSG)

Tagline: "Stop wasting my welfare check on all that other shit, I want more other people's money so I can get my own shit!"

Still working on getting that tagline down to bumper-sticker length.

[Rob Crawford]

I can't agree with you, henry. The Guillotine is too kind.

[Rob Crawford]

Still working on getting that tagline down to bumper-sticker length.

How about "GIMME, DAMMIT!"

[MarkO]

"Stop wasting my own shit?"

[henry]

Then SCAM needs to increase pike production Rob.

[hit and run]

jimmyk:
Couldn't the NYT find some way to make this Bush's fault? They are losing their edge.

Since we're going to go full bore into comprehensive immigration reform, Bush will be transformed for now into "reasonable Republican who reached across the aisle, unlike those extremist ideologues in the House today."

[Danube of Thought]

What the hell. They'll just piss it away on beer.

[James D.]

To recap: against the "vehement" advice of attorneys and experts in the field, the President authorized over a billion dollars be given out in an entirely fraudulent program with no provision whatsoever to verify anything about the recipients.

Can someone explain to me how this does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Because stealing a billion dollars from the treasury and handing it out in racist fashion to favored groups under utterly false pretenses sure seems like one to me.

[Cecil Turner]

Wow. Not like they're late to the story or anything, is it? Does this mean the rest of the MSM can report on it, too?

[Ignatz]

--On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court. --

I wish I had kept that Department of Ag brochure I was sent for oppressed Hispanics and women. Not sure why it was sent to me unless I'm on some Forest Service (a division of Ag) list.
It was a veritable handbook on soliciting fraud and a primer on how to nuzzle on up to the Pigford trough.
No different than ads trying to hook people on food stamps I guess. The 21st century plantation owner sure is benevolent....unless you're a taxpayer of course.

[MarkO]

Beer and watermelon?

[cathyf_who_probably_still_cannot_post]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/04/a-payoff-from-austerity-investigative-reporting-at-the-times.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2017d4323c612970c#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e2017d4323c612970c

[Threadkiller]

MarkO wins "Threadkiller for a Day"

[pagar]

O/T George Jones is Gone!

One of the greatest voices , IMO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R2F9f2Cl6Y

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_GEORGE_JONES?SITE=KFAQ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[cathyf_who_probably_still_cannot_post]

Brian and Anne can post.
I can't post anything but links to my non-posts.
bummer

[Thomas Collins]

I wonder whether this is the NY Times not being as willing to be in Obama's pocket as before, career DOJ attorneys deciding enough is enough, or both. Breibart seemed to have enough info to report accurately well before this. Perhaps Pinch is worried that if Obama gets any more tax increases, Pinch will feel the pinch.

In any event, cheer up, everyone. With all the waste actively pushed by the Obama Administration (windmill projects, Solyndra, Fisker, Obamaphones, stimulus dollars to support various political allies), this scam is barely a small slice of bacon off the pig farm.

[MarkO]

TK, what will I do with you for an entire day? Can we Google?

[Captain Hate]

The Children of the Cornhole are *not* happy:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113042/senate-democrats-save-air-travelers-and-gop-sequester?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=04ef0ee7d2-TNR_Daily_042513&utm_medium=email#

[Rob Crawford]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our candidate for 2016. As you can see, he's a seasoned campaigner.

[NK]

CaptH-- that FAA story is a small hint at the future-- sequester is a 2.3% reduction of the INCREASED spending. This time next year the discussion will be how to cut 20% of ACTUAL SPENDING. It will be blood on the decks-- and the Repubs can make good use of the FAA debacle and the intelligence-DHS Marathon Debacle and the Pigford debacle and Solyndra-Fisker to CUT THE OBUMMER GRIFTER REDISTRIBUTION FIRST -- cut 100% of that shite, before we cut Soc Sec and Medicaid.

[Captain Hate]

I'd vote for him before Mark Sanford. I'd also butcher Mark Sanford before him.

[Threadkiller]

You sit around and wait for Danube, MarkO.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[centralcal]

From the Daily Mail - $40K of Gifts from Sarkozy to Obama in just ONE year:

Former French President and pop singer wife Carla Bruni gave America's first couple more than $40,000 worth of gifts in a single year, it emerged today.

Presents included a designer Hermes golf bag and Baccarat crystal statuettes of players, according to newly released records.

The incredible generosity will not only further the Sarkozy's Bling-Bling reputation, but confirm that he presided over one of the most spendthrift presidencies in French history.

Spenthrift! LOL - I betcha we will find out that Barry and Shelley surpass them (except it will be on themselves, not gifts to others).

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder if free BOzophones were used to spread the word on Pigfraud money?

Actually, I don't wonder at all.

Not much news on the Peasant Import Bill today. Nothing much on the adventures of D-Dawg and Speedbump either. Perhaps there's a pause for an evaluation of the effectiveness of Butch's use of security forces to cow Bostonians.

[centralcal]

About the "Pigfraud" money - last year on my talk radio news channel there was an advertisement played frequently, urging folks to apply for the money. It was aimed heavily at Native Americans (lotsa tribes in these parts with Casinos).

[Threadkiller]

Gives new meaning to "Free Apps", RB.

[AnnSpencer]

Here's another free app:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/25/usdamexico-spanish-language-flyer-get-kids-on-food-stamps-without-showing-documents/

[AnnSpencer]

Here's another free app:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/25/usdamexico-spanish-language-flyer-get-kids-on-food-stamps-without-showing-documents/

[Rick Ballard]

TK,

Steve King of Iowa should be recognized for his work on banging the drum about Pigfraud. He has a definite McClintock streak. That's why the Fnorks targeted him early to keep him from an Iowa Senate seat. He might disrupt McCain/Graham harmony at the hog trough.

[Captain Hate]

Mark Levin's a big Steve King fan and has gone ballistic on Rove for targeting him.

[pagar]

Great links,Ann!

[Danube of Thought]

We are getting ready for our closeup, bearing in mind that there's a broken heart for every light on Broadway.

[Threadkiller]

http://leestranahan.com/stop-pigford-fraud-interview-with-rep-steve-king-how-you-can-stop-the-fraud-in-under-5-minutes

And the 78 Republicans that did it in :

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll444.xml

[Rick Ballard]

test

[AnnSpencer]

LOL, pagar. First, it won't let you post unless you change your name and email, then it posts twice. :(

Let's try this one, cause it is good news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/26/the-democrats-have-lost-on-sequestration/

[AnnSpencer]

Dot, your link does not work for me.

[hit and run]

DoT's link fixed

So is Doug for or again' the movie?

[Gus]

When is Karl Rove going to open his library and shut he fat yap?

[Neo]

Pigford is as close as anything ever will be that even looks vaguely like "reparations."

[DoT on iPad]

She's for it, hit, as is everyone in town except maybe the school principal.

[Brian]

Duh Gus Gus, your ignorance is stunning.
You don't know [squat] about Karl Rove.

He was a protégé of brilliant strategist,
Lee Atwater, and like his mentor, Atwater,
Karl Rove has been a brilliant strategist
and Tactician, too, winning GW's elections.

You're becoming retarded like the rest of them here.
I warned you that their stupidity was contagious. :)

[narciso]

Didn't we see this movie, already it was called 'Savages'