Now FSA's lords in Congress have laid down commandments to FSA bureaucrats, and to the Farmer's Home Administration bureaucrats before 1994, which go something like this:
- thou shall lend to the new farmers, to the historically disadvantaged, and to the needy
- thou shall never compete with private enterprise, so thou shalt not lend to someone who can receive a loan from local banks
- thou shall not lose money on bad loans
- honor the maxim, late money is worse than no money.
Or maybe the local banker runs out of money to loan. In that case FSA bureaucrat could, in theory, step in. The only problem is the running out of money is likely to occur late in the lending season, so the FSA bureaucrat's loan is likely to be late.
Now suppose both FSA and the bank have money to loan, and neither is prejudiced. So Jane Doe goes to the bank and gets an offer of a loan at 8 percent. She goes to FSA but since she has a loan offer from the local bank, FSA turns her down. Or, as in Porter's case, FSA turns him down, thinking it's likely the local banker will approve the loan. That could be the case, or it may be discriminatory intent. It certainly feels like discrimination to the loan applicants.