We've often highlighted how federal and state regulators who target short-term lenders only end up hurting…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Federal Regulators Again Target Short-Term Lending, Hurting Struggling Americans They Claim to Help

We've often highlighted how federal and state regulators who target short-term lenders only end up hurting the struggling Americans they claim to be helping.

That dynamic is even more pronounced in times of increasing economic uncertainty like today.

According to a 2018 study from the federal government itself, nearly 40% of American families don’t possess sufficient savings to cover even a $400 emergency expense, including 51% of military service members living paycheck-to-paycheck.   For such people, credit cards aren’t always a viable option and traditional bank loans aren't feasible because of the small amounts involved.

They can, however, access desperately-needed money for the short-term via consumer finance loans.   Unfortunately, the Biden Administration, the Pelosi…[more]

July 05, 2022 • 07:23 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Home The Issues Legal Reform / Tort Reform Feds’ Pigford Settlements Leave Taxpayers Picking Up the Tab
Feds’ Pigford Settlements Leave Taxpayers Picking Up the Tab Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, September 23 2010
If there is any hope of getting federal spending under control, the truth behind the Pigford payouts must be known.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is not the problem in Washington, D.C.  If anything, the man frequently described as one of the most conservative members of Congress is standing up for the everyday Americans who are fed up with how liberal elites are fleecing taxpayers. 

Like other Republicans, King wants to stop the out-of-control spending and eliminate the programs that keep the money flowing.  In anticipation of a GOP congressional majority after this year’s midterm elections, he recently called for all Republicans to take a “blood oath” to defund ObamaCare in every appropriations bill next year.  When the presidential veto ultimately comes, King wants his fellow fiscal conservatives to stand strong. 

“At some point,” King says, “President (Barack) Obama will have to decide whether his signature legislation is worth shutting down the government.  Make no mistake.  It will be President Obama’s decision to shut down the government if he refuses to sign appropriations bills into law.  In 1995, President (Bill) Clinton shut down the government and the House gave in.  This time, I want at least 218 Republicans who aren’t wobbly.” 

He’ll need that kind of fortitude in order to launch his other big initiative should Republicans regain control of the House. 

In some ways, the truth behind the Pigford settlements is the scandal that dare not speak its name in Republican circles.  Southern conservatives in particular are scared to death of it.  Pigford is named after the lead representative in a class action lawsuit that alleges the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) discriminated against black farmers when distributing subsidies from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s.  Filed during the Clinton Administration, the Pigford lawsuit quickly went to mediation where sympathetic USDA administrators agreed to settle the case at taxpayer expense. 

At this point, Pigford’s history takes a bizarre turn.  A consent decree is the legal instrument for enforcing a settlement agreement against a government agency.  Once the plaintiff and the agency heads agree on the terms of a settlement, they give their consent to a judge’s decree enforcing the agreement.  The Pigford consent decree provided money damages for members of the class in exchange for waiving the members’ right to a trial.   

That’s when the problems began.  As one of only two Republicans serving on both the House Judiciary and Agricultural committees, King had a front row seat as the payout process unfolded.  One witness in favor of the Pigford settlement testified about the USDA’s discrimination, saying that farmers needed to be compensated.  With a series of questions asking how many farmers specifically were affected, King finally forced an estimate: 50.  Other witnesses put the number closer to 3,000.  Time would show that even the latter number failed to consider just how attractive a racially-conscious settlement arrangement would prove to be.  

Within just a few years, 14,000 Pigford-related claims were paid.  Soon there were charges that notice of the Pigford settlement terms were not adequately communicated to black farmers, particularly the filing deadline.  These late filers succeeded in getting legislation passed to reopen the filing deadline and settlement fund, now flush with an additional $100 million. 

Yet even that wasn’t enough.  After entering office, President Obama announced, through Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, an even bigger windfall.  Even though no lawsuit was pending and the payout process in the original consent decree was still in effect, the Obama Administration pledged another $1.15 billion to be made available to all successful Pigford II (i.e. late filing) claimants.  Today, over 90,000 Pigford-related claims have been paid with more in the pipeline.   

But there is more to this story than the escalating number of potential Pigford claimants.  At each step in the process an ulterior motive for expanding the settlement came into focus.  King recalls, “The opening line of (Judge Paul L. Friedman’s) consent decree starts with ‘Forty acres and a mule…’”  There are reports that lawyers encouraged some African Americans to file dubious Pigford claims as a way to get a form of slavery reparations from the federal government. 

The likelihood of a backdoor case of taxpayer fraud increases sharply with the realization that the federal government counts only 40,000 black farmers in the entire country, meaning that the 90,000+ in potential payouts is double the number of eligible claimants. 

At the moment, no one other than Representative King is willing to get to the bottom of what has become the largest class action civil rights settlement in American history.  If there is any hope of getting federal spending under control, the truth behind the Pigford payouts must be known.  Hopefully, King’s Republican colleagues won’t let ill-founded charges of racism scare them away from protecting taxpayers. 

Quiz Question   
What percentage of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the just-completed 2021-2022 term were decided unanimously?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, both in their homes and in public. On Friday, New York responded that it didn't care.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend on Friday by signing into law legislation crafted in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision…[more]
 
 
—Margot Cleveland, Senior Legal Correspondent at The Federalist
— Margot Cleveland, Senior Legal Correspondent at The Federalist
 
Liberty Poll   

How are record-high gas prices and other increasing costs affecting your Independence Day travel plans?