Bachmann, King fight discrimination claim for black farmers

There’s no way that 94,000 black farmers were falsely denied government loans between the years of 1983 and 1997.

Settlements range from $80,000 to $250,000 per farmer and even include people who aren’t farmers but who claim they would have been farmers if the government hadn’t falsely denied them loans.

Bachmann’s right. If the improper denial of loans was that prevelant in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where are the lawsuits? Where are the scandalous media reports of racist federal employees who systematically denied deserving farmers of their loans?

This doesn’t pass the smell test and an unbiased press would be launching an investigation.

Even if you’re right, WTF does this have to do with “slavery reparations” (for God’s sake, the alleged discrimination happened 120 years after the Civil War) and Obama being a “very, very urban senator”? Forgive if I don’t see the legitimate concern about fraud behind this BS.

first line: Farmers. Plural. No apostrophe needed.

Got it.

Dennis writes:
“There’s no way that 94,000 black farmers were falsely denied government loans between the years of 1983 and 1997. ”

Ok, that is your assertion. Now post your facts supporting that assertion.

Start with the number of black farmers during that 14 year period. Should be easy enough to get, in fact, I’m sure you already have it or you wouldn’t post a declarative statement.

Bachmann herself. Oh, and Steve King. And “Dennis”. Total idiots.

[...] post by american farm bureau – Google News addthis_url = [...]

Dennis,
“even include people who aren’t farmers” you mean like Bachmann who gets a farm subsidy? Her manicured hands certainly have never seen soil.

“If the improper denial of loans was that prevelant in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where are the lawsuits?”

This settlement is THE RESULT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT!!!!!! Sometimes it pays to have some knowledge before you post Dennis.

The ding-bat and her racist friend King deserve each other. Anything that the 2 of them claim you have to look at and wonder how they ever graduated 6th grade,200 million dollar per day claim is a fine example of the ding-bats outragous claims.Of coarse this coming from a pair of loon’s who are against Health-Care for the citizens of the U.S but okay for them to get it.. So keep defending the loon Dennis hope you get a slice of Michels subsidy’s because we all know she deserves hers

Just another example of Bachmans hypocrisy. She and her family got theirs and to hell with everone else!

The USDA estimates a total of 26,785 black owned farms in 1977. There are 94,000 approved claims under Pigford II.

The settlement reached under the Clinton administration was that black farmers needn’t have even applied for USDA loans to get settlement money. In fact one needn’t have been a black farmer to get settlement money, all blacks needed to assert was that they “were thinking of becoming a farmer” during that time period.

At least Bachmann got her farm subsidy for owning an actual farm and not because she “was thinking about buying a farm”.

The legitimate claiments are being dwarfed by the scam claiments.

Here is a link to the Congressional hearing on inadequate notice given to claimants.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/pdf/108hrg/97230.pdf

Note that the hearing was in 2004, when the House was controlled by Republicans. Note also that the hearing was held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Note that a member of this Subcommittee was Steve King from Iowa. Note that the chair of the subcommittee was Stephen Cabot, Republican from Ohio.

Now look at page 6 of the pdf, and see the opening statement from Chabot, part of which says:

“Tragically, recent statistics released on the Consent Decree suggest
to this Subcommittee that this constitutional right was not
safeguarded in the construction and administration of the Consent
Decree. Although the notice campaign designed was deemed to be
effective by the court in a fairness hearing held on April 14, 1999,
the determination was made using advertising industry tools designed
to measure the likely effectiveness of a campaign, not the
actual effectiveness of a campaign. Reports indicate that approximately
66,000 potential class members submitted their claims late,
most because they did not know that they were required to submit
a claim sooner, thus losing their right to sue the USDA for past
wrongs.
It is hard for many of us to accept that 66,000 farmers would
consciously wait to file a claim that would impact their right to life,
liberty, and property, knowing that they were required to do so earlier.
Further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the
late claims reveals that many farmers failed to get any notice
whatsoever or failed to understand the contents of the notice if
they did receive the notice. These facts lead this Subcommittee to
conclude that the notice implemented in the Pigford case was either
ineffective or defective as nearly two-thirds of the putative
class failed to be effectively notified of the case requirements.”

So if the number of claimants is fraud, is ridiculous, why is that in 2004, a Republican controlled subcommittee, on which Steve King sat, did not make a case that there is no way there could be 66,000 claimants? To the contrary, they acknowledge that 66,000 claimants may have been harmed through lack of notice.

Further, the re-opening of the claims process known as “Pigford II” was sponsored by Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa.

Again, why did Steve King, who was on the subcommittee, sit silent while the Republican chairman Chabot gave credence to the 66,000 number?

For anyone else who wants to know the actual history of this case, this is a link to a Congressional Research report to Congress.

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf

Note that of claims adjudicated so far, 69% have been approved and 31% denied.

If someone wants to charge fraud, they need to cite specific adjudications that were approved but fraudulent.

But that is a lot of work, especially when you don’t want to know the truth. You just want to spread lies and false accusations.

Thank Steve King for reopening Pigford for late claims, he was on the subcommittee. Thank Charles Grassley for opening Pigford II.

And thank Andrew Breitbart et al for another case of false reporting.

Finally, Edward writes:

“The settlement reached under the Clinton administration was that black farmers needn’t have even applied for USDA loans to get settlement money. In fact one needn’t have been a black farmer to get settlement money, all blacks needed to assert was that they “were thinking of becoming a farmer” during that time period.”

This is a lie. Edward posts lies.

A claimant must meet all these requirements in the original consent decree:

Under the Pigford consent decree, an eligible recipient is an African-American who:
(1) Farmed or attempted to farm between January 1981 and December 31, 1996;
(2) Applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believes that he or she was
discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race; and
(3) Made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997.

Note that this is required simply to file a claim; the claim is still adjudicated.

But it is easier to believe emails a blog sites than to bother to go to the source documents and determine the facts.

Now, if someone wants to post that they are “concerned” that adjudicators are co-actors in fraud, and post some evidence with specifics, go ahead. But that’s too much hard work for armchair liars.

Different Tim, stop posting facts and background, you’ll make their heads explode!

And equipping the rest of us to debunk the conservative myth machine is hardly fair to conservatives who don’t know there’s more to debate than assertions. Be a sport!

EricF,

Their heads won’t explode, their heads are vacuums. Their heads might implode, but their skulls are so thick even the suction of a perfect vacuum can’t collapse them. Nothing gets in, and there’s nothing inside.

There is enough legitimate stuff to go after without making sh1t up. Lazy liars.

The FBI found enough evidence to prosecute 3 cases for fraud. 3. Out of 99k+. Aparently 3/99,000 = vast majority.

“We’ve got to stand up at some point and say, ‘We are not gonna pay slavery reparations in the United States Congress,’” he continued. “That war’s been fought. That was over a century ago. That debt was paid for in blood, and it was paid for in the blood of a lot of Yankees, especially. And there’s no reparations for the blood that paid for the sin of slavery. No one’s filing that claim.”

Wow. I cannot believe he said that. This issue had nothing to do with slave reparations. I do not know why he thought he could say that! Obsurd.

hey Michele – Keep it up, way to get the Black Vote LOL

[...] described the settlement, which is known as Pigford, as “modern-day reparations.” In November, he had this to say:“Figure this out, Madame Speaker,” King said on the House floor on Monday. “We have a very, [...]