»» Columnists

USDA Responds to Andrew Breitbart and Rep. Steve King on Black Farmer Settlement

by Tommy Christopher | 5:56 pm, November 30th, 2010

» 11 comments

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack held a telephone press conference Monday to discuss the recent passage by unanimous consent of The Claims Resettlement Act of 2010, which provides, among other things, for funding of a settlement between the USDA and black farmers who suffered racial discrimination. The so-called Pigford 2 case was also the catalyst for Rep. Steve King’s observation, today, that Barack Obama is “very, very urban.”

After the conference call, we asked the USDA to respond to allegations, by King and conservative media figure Andrew Breitbart, of widespread fraud in the Pigford case, and a supposed connection to the firing of Shirley Sherrod.

Conservatives have been trying to make hay out of Sherrod’s connection to the Pigford case since before the virtual ink on her forced resignation was dry. Both King and Breitbart have alleged that Sherrod, who was a successful claimant in the Pigford 1 settlement, was fired by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in an effort to keep the settlement under the political radar. This is belied by the fact that Vilsack volunteered the information in a nationally televised press conference the very next day.

Both King and Breitbart have also alleged that the overwhelming majority of Pigford claims are out-and-out fraud, with Breitbart pegging the number at around 75%, and King declaring that all but a “few dozen” of the claims are fraudulent.

In a July interview with Mediaite, King promised an investigation of the Pigford case should the Republicans take over the House during the midterms. King also has a history of at times racially-charged opposition to the Pigford settlement. In addition to his comments earlier today, King has previously referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.” From C-Span:

The chief bit of “evidence” given for fraud in this case, aside from so-far-anonymous anecdotes, is the fact that there are an estimated 80,000 Pigford claimants, there were only around 18,000 black farmers in the US in the 1990s. As I’ve pointed out before, though, Breitbart may be correct in saying that many Pigford claimants have “never seen a piece of farmland,” but that’s because the USDA discriminated against them!

When presented with King’s and Breitbart’s allegations, a USDA spokesman issued the following response: (via email)

These accusations are nothing more than an attempt to derail an effort to provide long-overdue compensation to thousands of farmers who were discriminated against over several decades. Current census numbers on black farmers are not the proper guide for the number of claimants, and certainly no basis for allegations of fraud. Out of the 15,000 claims processed under Pigford I, the FBI determined that only 3 claims were fraudulent, and this Administration is committed to ensuring that the new claims process has integrity and provides justice to those who have suffered discrimination.

If King’s incendiary statements aren’t evidence enough of bad faith, the fact that he ignores key facts ought to be. Not only were all allegations of fraud in Pigford 1 investigated by the FBI, but only about 63% of those claims were approved, even using the less-stringent Track A burden of proof. There has obviously been rigorous oversight involved throughout, yet King misleadingly characterizes the claims process as a rubber stamp.

Opponents of the Pigford 2 funding aren’t interested in stricter oversight, that’s not what they’re asking for. Rather, they wish to turn this issue into a political wedge that pits our “very, very urban” President against those who would object to paying “slavery reparations,” with nary a thought to the black farmers whom the USDA has already admitted to discriminating against.

Andrew Breitbart, Pigford, Pigford 2, Steve King, Tom Vilsack

Big Eddie

The thing that jumps out in this case is the insane number of claims . But , heck , just print some more money .
Just4thefax

Fact: Urban please give me some handouts is on the liberals mindset!
Pablo

Nice racially charged article, Tommy!
Pablo

The chief bit of “evidence” given for fraud in this case, aside from so-far-anonymous anecdotes, is the fact that there are an estimated 80,000 Pigford claimants, there were only around 18,000 black farmers in the US in the 1990s. As I’ve pointed out before, though, Breitbart may be correct in saying that many Pigford claimants have “never seen a piece of farmland,” but that’s because the USDA discriminated against them!

*double facepalm*
Pablo

I would have been an astronaut but NASA discriminated against me.
Judge Mental

“There has obviously been rigorous oversight involved throughout.”

Where are the facts to support this assertion?

And how do you know what the “opponents” want? I’m an opponent, precisely because of the apparent lack of oversight. Nothing to do with politics.
Tommy Christopher

Judge Mental said:
“There has obviously been rigorous oversight involved throughout.”

Where are the facts to support this assertion?

And how do you know what the “opponents” want? I’m an opponent, precisely because of the apparent lack of oversight. Nothing to do with politics.

I was referring to the opponents described in my article, where I also provided the answer to your first question. The FBI investigated all allegations of fraud in Pigford 1, prosecuted 3 cases. Over a third of Pigford 1 Track A claims were denied. That seems like fairly rigorous oversight to me, but whatever adjective you use, King acts as if there isn’t any.
Judge Mental

Tommy Christopher said:
I was referring to the opponents described in my article, where I also provided the answer to your first question. The FBI investigated all allegations of fraud in Pigford 1, prosecuted 3 cases. Over a third of Pigford 1 Track A claims were denied. That seems like fairly rigorous oversight to me, but whatever adjective you use, King acts as if there isn’t any.

To judge the rigor of oversight, I’d like to know how many allegations of fraud there were and the scope of fraud alleged. If there were only three instances of alleged fraud, and all three were prosecuted, that would be a lot different than if there were allegations of widespread fraud but only three people were prosecuted. And just because more than a third of the claims were denied doesn’t say anything about the merits of the remaining claims (i.e., whether they were supported by actual evidence, as opposed to merely sworn statements from the claimants). It’s not obvious to me that the oversight was rigorous.
skyfet

@Pablo
Just because you had a dream of becoming an Astronaut does not mean you actually made effort to become one.
chatmandu002

The first desperate act of a liberal, cry “Racist”.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Hansen/1696941384 Ken Hansen

Tommy Christopher said:
I was referring to the opponents described in my article, where I also provided the answer to your first question. The FBI investigated all allegations of fraud in Pigford 1, prosecuted 3 cases. Over a third of Pigford 1 Track A claims were denied. That seems like fairly rigorous oversight to me, but whatever adjective you use, King acts as if there isn’t any.

Oversight, sure, but if “over a third of Pigford 1 Track A” claims were denied, it was (assumed) to be because they were without merit, and 1/3 of meritless claims.

I don’t see in the article where King questions oversight, I see where he asserts high levels of fraud, and with over one third of claims rejected, he might be right. He might also be wrong, but if you want to go after him for claiming there was no oversight, you really ought to include a quote where he questions the oversight, not the fraud.