Family farmers were, quite simply, not what the feds wanted. The Report's statistics "include[d] establishments that cannot rasonably be called farms and are inconsistent with the Department's farm income mission." (Ibid)
In that light, the "executives", who included a group of young, upcoming administrators in the Agriculture Department in 1972, wrote that "Agriculture should be viewed as an industry which consumes resources, provides emplloyment, and produces goods of value to society." (Ibid)
Small family farms, which were mostly operated by families, did not fall into the category of viable business operations,accordig to the "executives." Unfortunately for millions of family farmers across the nation, bureaucrats took this report as a green light to redirect farm loan programs toward large, industrial farms and to, according to several farm activists, "starve out", lesser entitities.
Their methods then and now reportedly include: manipulation of loan regulations, document forgery, deceptive, often illegal practices of holding up loans funds, delaying disbursement of operating capital, illegally sharing applicant information with banks, realtors and investors, and feuding with outspoken farmers of all ethnicities.
When black farmers had finally had enough and filed the Black Farmer Lawsuit in 1999, the system really started churning. The lawsuit mandated that the black farmer "prove his case" by finding a "similarly situated white farmer" who had received a loan, when the black farmer was denied a loan.
Unfortunately for the white farmers who allowed the black farmers to use their information, the farm agency often retaliated in a big way. One white farmer in Texas, who allowed a black farmer to use him as a "similarly situated white farmer", wound up on the wrong side of a feud with the federal farm loan system--and eventually ended up in prison for his pains.
According to Larry N. Mack, a white farmer fronm Palestine, Texas, "While on the County Committee (Farm Service loan committee), I, along with the other two members, refused a direct order from the County Supervisor, as directed by the State Office, to find a borrower ineligible for a loan. Later, I reported an illegal case of racial discrimination. I was named as a similarly situated delinquent white borrower in two of the Pigford v Glickman cases. My advocacy for Black ranchers motivated USDA to retaliate." (Larry N. Mack, "Some Highlights of the Mack Experience With the USDA's Farm Service Agency's Farm Loan Program 1991-2001")
Mr. Mack's experience with the federal farm loan system mirrors that of millions of farmers across the nation. Mack accuses the USDA of destroying his ranch operation by: 1. Failing to keep accurate sales records; 2. delaying sales; 3. Presenting misinformation and untruths both in and out of court; 4. USDA and other DOJ staff simply acted in bad faith by failing to follow the laws and regulatios [of the United States](Ibid)
Farm supporters say the agency's manipulation of loan documents, its failure to keep accurate records, its proven delaying of farm loan fund disbursement and its acting in bad faith--including allegations of perjury by agency personnel, have generated nothing less than a war on small farmers.
The fact that the agency has the power to delay or even retract the disbursement of funds, together with the USDA's policy of rewarding loan officers who "clear bankruptices" puts too much power and too many ethical conflicts in the hands of Farm Service Agency loan officers.
It is a clear conflict of interest when the loan officer who wrote the loan gets a bonus for clearing bankrupt farmers off the books. This is almost a certain prescription for driving farmers into bankruptcy.
Some farmers and ranchers have been driven into bankruptcy by a policy so Machiavellian that one simply has to admire it for its deviousness. It goes like this.
A farmer or rancher gets a loan to purchase animals (cows) or crops. The loan is secured by the animals or crops. If the farmer sells these "secured assets" without permission, he could be sent to prison for selling secured assets.
So, in order to drive the farmer out of business, the agency simply refuses the farmer permission to sell the cattle or crop. If the farmer can't sell, he can't pay the loan back; if he sells without permission, the agency could have him arrested for selling secured assets. If the agency delays permission, the animals may be too old for the market, prices may have dropped, or drought conditions may necessitate the sale of a few animals in order to feed the others.
According to Larry Mack, "...in 1991, USDA refused the shipment of our '91 calf crop per the Form 1991, their formal release of their lien on the calves. There was no reason given other than the calves were mortgaged property and if I sold them I would be in 'big trouble.' (Ibid)
The agency repeated its refusal to release the lien in 1992, and, according to Mack, "This pattern of retaliation was repeated over and over in various farms for the next several years, until 2001. USDA never stopped the sale of our calves, onlydelayed them and consequently the income. The net result of these delays was to cvausr me to be delinquent on the loan installment payments. It was clearly shown on the Form 1962 that the money for the payments was to come from the sale proceeds. Without the sale, there is no payment." (Ibid)
