Pigford Part II...theft and corruption funded by your tax dollars

For those that don't know, Pigford vs Glickford was a case against the USDA for discrimination against black farmers by unfairly denying them government loans. We'll leave aside the issue of the government taking money from us in order to choose who we should have loaned it to.  At the time the bill was written which funded the reparations, it was the opinion of the authors that approximately 3,000 people would be filing for awards under the law.  It was originally funded to the tune of about 100 million dollars. A hundred million tax dollars to pay in penalties to farmers who had been discriminated against by our government officials at the USDA while loaning our money to others.  Seems to me I could make a great case for removing the interference of the USDA in our farmers finances and thereby avoid such situations all together.  Regardless, at the time the bill was written there were warnings voiced by some members of Congress that the bill would open the door to far more money being spent than intended as well as promised by the authors.  They were told that the 100 million was a ceiling and would pay all outstanding issues within the lawsuit.  As is often the case, those projecting future spending were correct.  Consider the following facts brought to the floor of the House today:
1.  projected 3,000 recipients turned into over 80,000
2.  The USDA found less than 40,000 TOTAL black farmers in the nation, from which the 86,000 claims came
3.  The 100 Million has now turned into almost 1.5 Billion!
4.  The requirements only state that a non-relative must support the claim that the claimant COMPLAINED the were discriminated against.  NO PROOF IS REQUIRED
5.  Claims were encouraged if there was a farmer in past generations (which assumes they must have been unfairly denied a loan, but doesn't have to show they even applied for one)
6.  In at least one district where discrimination claims were made, the USDA was managed by all blacks....how could that be discrimination?

I've saved the best for last.  The most astounding fact about this whole scam is that NOT ONE person in the USDA (the agency at fault and responsible for approving subsequent claims) has been found guilty of discrimination. 
So twice as many black farmers as there are in our country were all discriminated against by no one.
How is that possible?
How are there twice as many claims as there are black farmers in America?
If the USDA acted with such rampant discrimination, shouldn't management from the top down be replaced?
Doesn't this type of discrimination (which did occur to be sure) and the resulting fraudulent scheme provide us with another reason to keep our money and limit our federal government?

As long as Washington continues to support ridiculous legislation such as Pigford II, we need to laugh when they talk about reducing the debt or spending.  If we take them seriously we will never remember to replace them when we vote.  It is sad when the problems they hide rise to the level of corruption such as this example.  Truly votes have been paid for through a program such as Pigford II.

The biggest tragedy though?  The democracy is weaker for its implementation.  We have built up the idea on the left that it is okay to steal from others in our society and we have given the right a reason to find the left biased and immoral.  We have supported the idea that the government can force morality in its people.  The arguement over whether it should or not is a waste of time; it simply can not force moral behaviour.  We have split the populace into two groups AGAIN and ensured the future of our two parties.  We have made the issue about white vs black instead of allowing the banks to handle financing while enforcing the laws of equality upon those banks.  Government can not steal in order to act morally on our behalf, it can only enforce equality without using any labels in the process.