Sibby Online

All of South Dakota workers receive low pay, not just teachers

Cory Heidelberger has a post on South Dakota workers being third from the bottom in average pay. But you will not she him or any of his comments mention the tax increases we are paying in order to lift teacher pay from the bottom. Here is my comment he blocked:

So it is not just South Dakota Teachers that receive low pay. So Cory, how about legislation that increases taxes on tourists and give it to South Dakota workers and property tax breaks for the wealthy?

Tax and spend liberals from both parties like to promote coveting to justify their saving the poor from themselves. But in the case of increasing teacher pay, even the poor is paying more taxes. As Cory points out, South Dakotans pay over 2% higher rate for state and local taxes than Montana and Wyoming. Wyoming's after tax amount is 21% higher than South Dakotas. So why are the Democrats in favor of even more tax increases than the tax and spend liberals of the SDGOP? Do they really thing they can tax the poor out of poverty?

 

Republicans help set up Hillary's village where kidnapping is legalized in order to traffic children

Here is a letter I wrote and was published last Saturday by the Mitchell Daily Republic:

I have not written a letter over the past several months as my wife and I have been focused on a grandchild that got placed in Iowa's foster care system in late November 2015. I would like to now present our traumatic experience.

On Jan. 6, an Iowa court ordered an Interstate Compact Home Study so that we can be considered for placement. By May, the state of South Dakota had yet to receive that request, because the case manager for Iowa's Department of Human Services had been sitting on it. It finally was sent to South Dakota on July 6.

During the six months, our grandchild was still in foster care. At our expense we made three visits so that the child would know that she has a family. Then we heard about a Permanency Hearing Scheduled for Aug. 3. That sounded serious enough for us to hire an attorney in Iowa.

 After the hearing, we learned the plan that day was to terminate parental rights and immediately put the child up for adoption. A court report confirmed that it was the foster mom who was planning on making the adoption. Our Motion to Intervene has temporarily stopped that plan.

Upon doing research, I found that this common practice is referred to by some as "legalized kidnapping". This was set in place by former President Bill Clinton in 1997 with the "Adoption and Safe Families Act". It set foster care adoption targets for the states and provided $4,000 to $6,000 per child bonuses for those states that achieved their targets. The federal government also provided "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption, which now includes grandparents such as my wife and I.

Look's like Hillary's husband set up her village that she promotes to raise children. It consists of removing parental rights so that the states can steal the kids from their families and then be adopted out by strangers. All for the love of taxpayers' money by the states and the adopting parties. That is the other side of the foster care story.

Further research shows Hillary Clinton had I bigger hand in this:

What do Hillary Clinton, former Republican Whip Tom DeLay, and the founder of Wendy's have in common?

As First Lady, Hillary made adoption and foster care one of her priorities. She worked across the partisan aisle, with two unlikely partners: former Republican Minority Whip Tom Delay of Texas and business leader Dave Thomas of Wendy's, a lifelong Republican.

Together, they held events at the White House to raise awareness, and built support for legislation that would encourage adoptions, provide more aid for foster families, and help foster children find permanent, safe, loving homes.

The first piece of legislation was the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which provided support and services for adoptive families, and increased foster adoptions by 64 percent by 2002.

She was also a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and partnered with Democrats and Republicans alike to remove barriers to adoption and support the adoption of children in foster care.

At the State Department, Secretary Clinton brought the issue to the world stage. She appointed the first ever special advisor on international children's issues and worked with other countries to improve foster care programs worldwide.

Adoption and foster care are not likely to be an issue in any political campaign. They aren't hot button issues or ones that gather big headlines; but they're important to Hillary Clinton.

That is what her life has been about: building coalitions, working with partners, doing whatever it takes to make a real difference on issues that make a real difference in people's lives –beginning with the very youngest among us.

That's the Hillary Clinton I know.

This is the typical propaganda that the media uses to put a happy face on the globalists fascist agenda. Here is how we are supposed to view their efforts in regard to foster care:

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." 

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face.

But the real agenda is money:

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children.

And this is why Republican crony capitalists love it:

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right? 

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties.

Here are some of the details behind the business plan:

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.

For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.

But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."

In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits. 

Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier.

Here is Iowa's web site that promotes foster care and adoption.

There is no typical foster or adoptive family—foster families can be single, married, homeowners, or renters. They can come from all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds, and sexual orientations.

Yes, this is how the social engineers are trafficking children into the LBGT community. And received taxpayers' money in doing so:

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can.

So this is how the Democrats have setup a business plan that takes advantage of the poor, take their children away, and put them into homes of the wealthy so they can access to taxpayers' money. Sounds like something the Republicans would do, and they are as reported by the New York Times in 1997:

President Clinton is preparing to sign into law the most sweeping changes to the nation's adoption and foster-care system in nearly two decades.

The changes, approved by Congress last week as it wrapped up its work for the year, are intended to make it easier to remove children from abusive families and speed up their adoption.

The new legislation marks a fundamental shift in child-welfare philosophy, away from a presumption that everything should be done to reunite children with their birth parents, even if the parents have been abusive. The legislation would instead give more weight to the child's health and safety.

Senator John H. Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who was a leading sponsor of the legislation, said on the Senate floor before the measure passed by a voice vote: ''We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first.'' Although that is a worthy goal, he said, ''it's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.''

And who makes the determination which families are allowed to stay together? Ones wealthy enough to hire an attorney and stand up for their rights. This is another example of how Democrats lie about standing up for the poor and how the Republicans lie about standing up against big government. Most of America have been deceived by that propagnada. Politics is simply a game of lying, and so is Iowa's foster care system. Yes, there are cases where foster care is needed, but because the size and scope of the federal government has gone beyond the Constitution, the system has now become corrupt. And that corruption finds its way into the state and local governments. This is not a conspiracy theory. I have witnessed the process first hand, and so has others.

Eve Fisher's coveting could be a $44 trillion sin

Cory Heidelberger makes this conclusion regarding Sanford Health pulling out of the DakotaCare network:

If two oligopolizing health care providers are going to leave us with only one broad health insurance network, the market is failing us. The public option—the recommendation from President Obama and candidate Clinton that we offer Medicare to citizens under 65—is now all the more warranted in underserved South Dakota.

First off, liberal corporate capitalism in today's health care systems is not "free market", but is instead an administered market. Cory's propaganda causes the brainwashed to say things like this:

When my husband had his heart attack, I didn’t shop around to see if there was a cheaper way to get him to Sioux Falls than by helicopter. Instead, save his life! Now! And so prices go up – the epi-pen costs are a classic example – and up and up… And everyone just sighs and says it’s one more price for freedom. Bull. It’s greed. Give me single payer. I want every American on Medicare. We can make it work.

That was Eve Fisher. Another brainwashed Madvillite tries to add religion to the discussion. When I was allowed to comment, I would turn the table by saying that promoting coveting is a sin, not a Biblical Christian position of righteousness. Eve Fisher believes she deserves healthcare, but somebody else has to pay for it. That is coveting.

Bernie Sanders provided us with the real cost of a public single payer system:

 Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy director, retained Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to come up with a fiscal score of the Sanders plan. Friedman estimates that the plan would require $13.8 trillion in new government spending in the decade spanning 2017 through 2026. But that estimate is misleading, for reasons I’ll outline below.

And that is:

As a result, even by Friedman’s own optimistic projections about what single-payer health care could save, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $28.3 trillion over ten years. If Friedman is wrong, and the plan fails to reduce the growth of health care spending, it would result in $32.7 trillion in new federal spending.

An update takes it to $44 million:

I’ve slightly tweaked the above calculations using updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office’s 2016 Budget and Economic Outlook. John Goodman points out that if the point of single-payer is to save money through price controls, you don’t have to impose single-payer: just a price-control law. Ryan Ellis elaborates on the impact of Sanders’ proposal to hike the estate tax. Chris Conover estimates that Sanders’ open bar-style plan—free health care for everyone with weak rationing—would require $44 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, not $28 trillion.

So Eve Fisher's coveting could amount to $44 million over the first ten years. That would be an enormous sin. Countering Cory's propaganda with an argument that turns their lies around and shows the left's hypocrisy will get you banned from their discussions.  

 

Crooked Cory uses false propaganda to promote IM23

Here is the latest socialist propaganda coming out of Cory Heidelberger:

Let’s see… the South Dakota Education Association represents more than 5,000 teachers in our state. We have over 9,000 teachers. That means around 4,000 teachers not in SDEA but enjoying their local education associations’ representation in collective bargaining. If we can extrapolate $172 from West Virginia to South Dakota, we can estimate around $690,000 in free collective bargaining services rendered for non-union teachers in South Dakota.

That’s the free ride that IM 23 advocates are talking about. If you’re getting services from a union, you ought to pay for them. Funny—anti-union conservatives accuse Bernie Sanders supporters of wanting free stuff.

First off, the problem with all teachers getting paid the same, regardless of merit, is the root cause of this issue. Cory is against merit pay as it violates is socialist worldview.

Second, the Associated School Boards and Associated Administrators are funded by the taxpayers, which includes the non-union teachers and the rest of us taxpaying citizens. They were just as influential, if not more so, than the SDEA in the enormous multi-million dollar tax increase that is now going into the pockets of those union teachers. If on average the 5,000 union teachers gain $5,000 annually, that amounts to $25 million. Since the teachers are paid with tax dollars, the union dues come from are tax dollars. So in the already socialist structure, taxpayers are funding those who lobby to increase our taxes even further. So now Cory wants to force the taxpayers to fund even more union members by passing IM23. There is no limit to the socialists' greed and coveting.

Funny how propagandists like Cory can twist the facts into a lie. And when guys like me confront his lies, he gets mad and resorts to banning comments. Electing Cory Heidelberger would be a step into turning the entire state of South Dakota into Madville, where special interest cronies get special rights and the rest of us lose them. And just shut up if you don't like it.

Cory Heidelberger playing the role of a lying politician

Here is the latest lie from Cory Heidelberger:

Voters need leaders who are willing to communicate, to meet voters where they are, online and off. District 3, I can do that for you.

If that was really true, then he would not be blocking my comments. Cory, who is rabidly pro-abortion, is even saying he is pro-life. I tried to challenge his position, but my comment must of went to spam.

Update: Cory, the lying politician now says this:

All citizens should have equal opportunity to publish their thoughts online and to invite conversation… and all candidates should work hard to use that opportunity.

Except those who call him out on his propaganda. Will the voters of District 3 see thru is false claims? I even let Larry Kurtz comment on this web site, even though he says stuff that makes Trump look sensible, But I think Cory banned him to, along with Tara Volesky. Are there others?

Cory Heidelberger makes false claim on teacher pay for partisan reasons

Cory Heidelberger makes this claim:

Apparently there is some dispute as to what the Governor’s office said and meant in the text provided to and quoted by the Mitchell Daily Republic that I cite below. The Governor’s office says it has not revised timeframe for reaching the target salary of $48,500 to a decade; rather, as I explained in my original post, this year’s target statewide average teacher salary is $48,500, and that statutory target will increase by the index factor each year. That target is an average, not a mandate for each school district; some schools will reach that target, some will pass it, and some will remain behind. 

However, that does not change the evidence that, in the large swath of South Dakota covered by the Mitchell Daily Republic, none of the schools are meeting the target, meaning the average teacher salary in those districts is below the expected outcome.

I tried to tell Cory that the Mitchell School District is above the $48,500 target via comment, but my comments are still being blocked. Mitchell's average is being promoted as $52,322, or nearly eight percent above the target. Since Mitchell employs many teachers, their impact on the area average is much larger than the impact of a small school. But what is Cory's point:

It looks like Governor Daugaard needs a new set of legislators who can hold him accountable for his promises.

It details his point via a comment:

Throw out all incumbents, elect all challengers, and you get a Democratic majority that won’t roll over and pass inferior legislation. We can hold other bills at bay until the Governor provides the revenue and the formula necessary to fully fund regionally competitive K-12 teacher salaries.

Actually, we don’t even need a majority to do that. Even a nice one-third in each chamber—12 Democratic Senators, 24 Democratic Representatives—could put a nice parliamentary crimp on things until the Governor agrees to follow through on the bill we were sold last winter.

If my memory is correct all by one Democrat voted for the "inferior legislation". And adding more liberal tax and spend Democrats to the mix is going to fix the problem? Cory's main agenda is playing party politics. He is very good at spinning facts in order to promote Democrats and/or to denigrate Republicans. My explanations that show crony capitalism being a bipartisan policy gets into the way of fooling people with his propaganda.

The real issue that needs to be discussed is that small rural schools are getting the shaft and large urban schools are making out like bandits. Mitchell's teacher pay is eight percent above the target, plus they are wasting $18 million dollars on an extravagant fine arts center, while small schools are paying their teachers far less. This issue is how the big take advantage of the small. Crony capitalism is built on big government working with big business. My attempts to bring that point to the discussion of the so-called Dakota Free Press was returned with personal insults and now my third ban from commenting on the web site. And these people cry about men not being allowed to go into the women's bath room.

If Cory was a populist Democrat, he would have covered the urban crony capitalists oppressing the rural areas of South Dakota. Instead he plays partisan politics, which is based on propaganda. Cory's agenda is one of a far-left Neo-Marxist Democrat. Sadly he is forced to support a global crony capitalist for president. That must be frustrating for him. Sad he has to take it out on those who are trying to get him to understand reality.