Sunday, April 28, 2013

STEALTH REPARATIONS: New York Times confirms Obama administration behind billions in fraudulent payments

It's not often that I'll write approvingly of an article in The New York Times, but for Sharon LaFraniere's masterful deconstruction of the Pigford Scandal, I'll make an exception.

Pigford, you may recall, was first exposed by Andrew Breitbart and because of it he was sued, dismissed and lampooned by the Democrat-Media Complex. The term vindication was invented for situations like this.

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, 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...

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...

...But critics, including some of the original black plaintiffs, say that is precisely what the government did when it first agreed to compensate not only those who had proof of bias, but those who had none...

...[For example, 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...

...Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West, who supervised the civil division and oversaw the handling of the cases, canceled an interview. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. also declined to comment...

Like Operation Fast and Furious and Benghazi, the Pigford Scandal is a hundred times worse than Watergate. It represents institutionalized corruption and theft orchestrated by the President of the United States.

It is, in effect, a form of stealth reparations executed unlawfully on the part of this administration.

Heads should roll and impeachment should be on the table. Knowing the cowardly, feckless House Republican leadership, however, it's likely all of this will be ignored because John Boner and Eric Cantor are more interested in retaining their white-knuckled grip on power than doing the right thing.

Kudos to The New York Times for covering this blatant, open ripoff of the American taxpayer.


Hat tips: Lee Stranahan and Mark Levin.

Remember hearing that 90% of Americans want gun control? Well, those claims were pig excrement.

Economist John Lott eviscerates the propagantician known as "Lies, Damn Lies and" Nate Silver (which is the nickname he prefers, I hear):

Despite assurances by the likes of Nate Silver that these are solid polls showing "Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks," 

I have previously noted my skepticism of claims.  To me, it wasn't too surprising that the Senate voted down the gun control bill about 10 days ago.  My concern is that people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about the particular legislation being voted on by the Senate.  Well, now there is another poll by the PEW Research Center that I think is much more accurate.  It asks people whether they are happy that the Senate gun control bill was stopped.  Apparently, both Republicans and Independents are generally happy that it was stopped.  My guess is that Republicans should pay a lot more attention to what Independents and Republicans wanted than Democrats who wouldn't never have voted for the Republicans anyway.  It looks to me that Republicans voted the way that there constituents wanted.  So Republicans shouldn't really care that among all voters the poll showed support of 47 to 39 percent.  They should look at the results by political affiliation.

Many, such as the New York Times, paint a picture of Senators [like Max Baucus] who both simultaneously opposed the will of 90 percent of their voters and at the same time quake in fear of the NRA... Note in Baucus' case, he is retiring and yet he still voted against the so-called "universal background check" bill.  Might [the Times'] Mr. Nocera re-examine his piece?

By the way, the Nate Silver analysis of how Senators would vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill has sone major problem, he uses a very unreliable measure of gun ownership from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.  If you use a bad survey, you get a lot of noise and it makes it more likely that you won't get a statistically significant result.  I also like the way he runs a regression after the fact rather than predicting how people were going to vote before the Senate vote.  Letting him play around with different factors (we have no idea how many regressions that he ran before he decided to report the one that he did) makes the predictive power of that regression pretty useless.

It's back to the propaganda drawing board for you, Mr. Silver!


Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

Larwyn's Linx: Near-Suicidal Immigration Policies

Send us tips! Bloggers: install a Larwyn's Linx widget. Get real-time news, 24/7, at BadBlue.

Nation

Near-Suicidal Immigration Policies: Hanson
The Collapsing of the American Skull: Steyn
Golf by Day, Party by Night: Obama Celebrates 120th Round of Golf: Dossier

Obama Taqiyya: Collins
The Amnesty bill is a mockery of the rule of law: RS
Chair of House Intel Committee: Bombers had Outside Help: WZ

Court Rules Election Fraud Got Obama On The Ballot In 2008: Hawkins
Will Doug Kmiec Please Stand Up?: Adams
Amnesty bill would ease terrorists’ path -- Kansas Secretary of State: Kansas

Economy

Paying the Jizya to Welfare Terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev: Corner
Confirmed: Majority of Illegal Immigrants Receive Government Welfare: GWP
WaPo: Obama Defense Cuts Slamming Economy: TAB

Shocker: No One Wants to Buy Student Loan-backed Securities: Mead
Is Capitalism Killing Our Morals and Economy?: Mish
Front-Line Observations From A Seasoned Gold & Silver Bullion Dealer: ZH

Scandal Central

Gowdy: Benghazi hearings ‘coming quickly’, promises explosive evidence: Scoop
DHS Training Video Depicts Gun Owners As “Militia Members” Planning Terror Attacks: WZ
Gohmert: Muslim Brotherhood Is Guiding Obama In Boston Bombings Investigation: ThinkRegress

Climate & Energy

Al Gore, please call your office: iOTW
The Media Just Doesn't Get Science, Part 16,331: Ace
ND oil production has increased more than 600%: SAB

Media

Help me find Media Matters’ apology to Andrew Breitbart on Pigford: LI
FEATURE: McCain Jauntily Raked Again (and Still Not on McCain's Blog-roll!): RSM
Sarah Palin Strongly Condemns White House Correspondence Dinner on Twitter: Sooper

MUST WATCH: Judge Jeanine’s EPIC smackdown on the mother of the Boston jihadi bombers: Scoop
Obama at WH Correspondents Dinner: 'I'm Not the Muslim Socialist I Used To Be' : RightPundit
The Swaggies: White House “correspondents” dinner: Fausta

Liberals Only Seem to Care When Kids Are Killed By Bullets: RWN
McRINO Teams Up With Biden To Push Gun Control: WZ
Conan O’Brien Blasts Drudge, Bush, Romney, CNN, The NRA, Matthews at WHCD: Mediaite

World

Krauthammer on border security: Ask Obama why he’s got a fence around the White House: DC
There's no argument between peace and war: Reagan
Spain and France Reach Record Unemployment: Mead

Officials: Russia Had Wiretap on Bomb Suspect, Discussed Jihad With Mother: RightPundit
‘Iran already past nuclear red line,’ expert says: Times of Israel
Ground Zero Mosqueteer Desecrates Remains Found at Triumphal Mosque Site: Atlas

Sci-Tech (courtesy BadBlue.com/Tech)

My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price: Scoble
Vermont Telephone Company's gigabit internet service is live, half the price of Google Fiber: Engadget
Hashtags Gone Wrong: 6 Examples of Unfortunate Hashtag Choices: SocMedToday

Cornucopia

White House Correspondents’ Dinner: Waxing or Waning?: MOTUS
Critters and Kids: iOTW
Every Lad’s Dilemma: 1 Week Partying In Ibiza Or A Hot Summer Convertible?: CarThrottle

Image: White House Correspondents’ Dinner: Waxing or Waning?
Today's Larwyn's Linx sponsored by: Support the Franklin Center's Fight Against Fascism

QOTD: "The Tsarnaevs’ mom, now relocated from Cambridge to Makhachkala in delightful Dagestan, told a press conference the other day that she regrets ever having gotten mixed up with those crazy Yanks: “I would prefer not to have lived in America,” she said.

Not, I’m sure, as much as the Richard family would have preferred it. Eight-year-old Martin was killed; his sister lost a leg; and his mother suffered serious brain injuries. What did the Richards and some 200 other families do to deserve having a great big hole blown in their lives? Well, according to the New York Times, they and you bear collective responsibility. Writing on the op-ed page, Marcello Suarez-Orozco, dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and Carola Suarez-Orozco, a professor at the same institution, began their ruminations thus:

“The alleged involvement of two ethnic Chechen brothers in the deadly attack at the Boston Marathon last week should prompt Americans to reflect on whether we do an adequate job assimilating immigrants who arrive in the United States as children or teenagers.' Alternatively, the above opening sentence should “prompt Americans to reflect” on whether whoever’s editing America’s newspaper of record these days “does an adequate job” in choosing which pseudo-credentialed experts it farms out its principal analysis on terrorist atrocities to." --Mark Steyn

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Someone Break the News to Marco Rubio: Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement

I respect Marco Rubio. I supported him in his Senate run. Most importantly, I believe he means well.

But the allure of power has proven too strong for him. Ensconced in the Beltway Bubble, Rubio's fallen for what I call "the legislation delusion". Roughly translated, it is the belief that complex, multi-faceted legislation can solve humanity's problems.

Obamacare is the quintessential example of law run amok: it represents tens of thousands of pages of regulations, arbitrary thresholds, segmentation of families into static classes, and other symptoms of a master planner's delusions.

What the Statist terms "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is similarly -- and fatally -- flawed. It represents dizzyingly complex regulations, dependent upon arbitrary conditions, restrictions, and dictates all requiring millions of pages of flowcharts. It is the product of the proverbial "Mastermind": one who believes he or she can better orchestrate mankind than the entirety of the civil society.

And, as history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Masterminds must always turn a blind eye to the financial ramifications of their plans. One need only review the cost of Amnesty.

The cost of amnesty: $999 billion. The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion. Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.

$999 billion cost of Amnesty (Mass Legalization)

Source: The Heritage Foundation
Summary: The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.

$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.

Source: Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.
Summary: This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure. The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.

$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.

Source: Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.
Summary: This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

We conservatives are immigrants. We are first-generation immigrants or the descendants thereof. But we, as opposed to those whom the "Gang of Eight" would legalize, have followed a lawful process. We and our forebears have come to America's shores through Ellis Island and other ports of entry, applied for citizenship, and have become the law-abiding citizens that have shaped the country.

That is not what "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" represents: it instead grants legal status to those who have broken the law, stolen their way into the country without background checks, without any vetting of their connection to drug cartels or terrorism, and without even a modicum of examination.

There is only one acceptable response to the Gang of Eight's master plans. Seal the border, prove it is sealed over a substantial period of time, and then -- and only then -- will the American people countenance "amnesty" or whatever term the Statist uses to describe legalized lawbreaking.


THAT MUST BE ONE BORING PREACHER: 7-year-old boy steals dad's car to avoid church

If this kid applies as much energy to his schoolwork, he's gonna be one successful dude.

Police in Utah were in for a shock when they spotted an erratic driver recently. After following the white Dodge Intrepid for a spell, the pursuing officers watched as the driver parked the car, jumped from behind the wheel and ran into his father's house. Standard fare, you say? Not quite.


The driver was actually a seven-year-old boy who had pilfered his dad's keys to skip out on going to church. The officers opted to let the parents handle disciplining the youngster rather than subject him to the legal system, but cautioned the dad to keep his car keys in a more secure location in the future.

Good call.

You can check out video from the chase for yourself... The police say the kid did a pretty good job of keeping the car under control, but did run one stop sign. As Ricky Bobby would say, "I wanna go fast."

How come girls never engage in these kinds of capers? Why is it always boys?


Hat tip: BadBlue Car News.