SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Farmboy who wrote (59161)11/18/2012 11:54:53 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
It appears that Hostess was killed either by the unions or by the secured creditors. Most of the cast of characters have strong ties to democrats and the democrat party.

Will the Twinkie find a new life?

The Hostess Liquidation: A Curious Cast Of Characters As The Twinkie Tumbles



To: Farmboy who wrote (59161)11/18/2012 12:03:49 PM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71588
 
Hushed-Up "News" Explodes With a Fury
Oh, We Forgot to Tell You...
By Victor Davis Hanson
November 15, 2012

The second-term curse goes like this: A president (e.g., Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc.) wins re-election, but then his presidency implodes over the next four years -- mired in scandals or disasters such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the Iraqi insurgency and Hurricane Katrina.

Apparently, like tragic Greek heroes, administrations grow arrogant after their re-election wins. They believe that they are invincible and that heir public approval is permanent rather than fickle.

The result is that Nemesis zeroes in on their fatal conceit and with a boom corrects their hubris. Or is the problem in some instances simply that embarrassments and scandals, hushed up in fear that they might cost an administration an election, explode with a fury in the second term?

Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a U.S. drone in international waters.

Coincidentally, we just learned that new food stamp numbers were "delayed" and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.

Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.

Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama's plan of letting tax rates increase for the "fat cat" 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.

Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted Dream Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-Dream Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?

Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted due to the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protestors mad over a 2-month-old video -- just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.

The real postelection mystery is why we ever had a secondary consulate in Benghazi in the first place, when most nations had long ago pulled their embassies out of war-torn Libya altogether.

Why, about a mile from the consulate, did we have a large CIA-staffed "annex" that seems to have been busy with all sorts of things other than providing adequate security for our nearby diplomats?

Before the election, the media was not interested in figuring out what Ambassador Christopher Stevens actually was doing in Benghazi, what so many CIA people and military contractors were up to, and what was the relationship of our large presence in Libya to Turkey, insurgents in Syria and the scattered Gadhafi arms depots.

But the strangest "coincidentally" of all is the bizarre resignation of American hero Gen. David Petraeus from the CIA just three days after the election -- apparently due to a long-investigated extramarital affair with a sort of court biographer and her spat with a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.

If the affair was haphazardly hushed up for about a year, how exactly did Petraeus become confirmed as CIA director, a position that allows no secrets, much less an entire secret life?

How and why did the FBI investigate the Petraeus matter? To whom and when did it report its findings? And what was the administration reaction?

Coincidentally, if it is true that Petraeus can no longer testify as CIA director to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the ignored requests of CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi for more help, can he as a private citizen testify more freely, without the burdens of CIA directorship and pre-election politics?

It has been less than two weeks since the election, and Obama seems no exception to the old rule that for administrations which manage to survive their second terms, almost none seem to enjoy them.

The sudden release of all sorts of suppressed news and "new" facts right after the election creates public cynicism.

The hushed-up, fragmentary account of the now-unfolding facts of the Libyan disaster contributes to further disbelief.

The sudden implosion of Petraeus -- whose seemingly unimpeachable character appears so at odds with reports of sexual indiscretion, a lack of candor and White House backstage election intrigue -- adds genuine public furor.

The resulting mix is toxic, and it may tax even the formidable Chicago-style survival skills of Obama and the fealty of a so far dutiful media.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com

realclearpolitics.com



To: Farmboy who wrote (59161)11/20/2012 8:05:40 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Unions flexed muscles in state campaigns



Photo: AP New Hampshire Gov.-elect Maggie Hassan in Manchester, N.H. When Hassan won the New Hampshire governor's race, it wasn't just a victory for Democrats. Unions spent millions to elect Hassan because she can block a Republican legislature from gutting their organizing and bargaining ability. From California to Maine, unions used their political muscle to defeat ballot initiatives against them and elect labor-friendly governors and lawmakers.


Show more Show less





Photo: APNew Hampshire Gov.-elect Maggie Hassan in Manchester, N.H. When Hassan won the New Hampshire governor's race, it wasn't just a victory for Democrats. Unions spent millions to elect Hassan because she can block a Republican legislature from gutting their organizing and bargaining ability. From California to Maine, unions used their political muscle to defeat ballot initiatives against them and elect labor-friendly governors and lawmakers.


Show moreShow less

More Photos (1 of 1)

WASHINGTON (AP) — From California to Maine, unions used their political muscle in the recent elections to help install Democratic governors, build labor-friendly majorities in state legislatures and defeat ballot initiatives against them.

The combination of union money and member mobilization helped Democrats take control of state legislatures in Maine and Minnesota. In Michigan, voters repealed a law that allowed cities in financial distress to suspend collective bargaining contracts. But unions lost there on an effort to make collective bargaining rights a part of the state constitution.








In New Hampshire, unions helped Maggie Hassan win the governor's race. Unions spent millions backing Hassan with television ads and an extensive get-out-the-vote operation because she opposes a right-to-work bill to ban labor-management contracts that require affected workers to be union members or pay union fees.

In perhaps their most important victory, unions defeated a California ballot measure that would have prohibited them from collecting money for political purposes through payroll deductions. "The unions must be fairly happy with themselves," said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "These are positive signs, particularly saving their political life in California."

While re-electing President Barack Obama was labor's highest Election Day priority, unions invested major resources in state races where they have been fighting efforts by governors and state lawmakers to restrict bargaining rights or dilute union power.

The victories could mark a turnaround of sorts for unions nearly two years after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker announced plans to strip teachers, nurses and other public employees of most collective bargaining rights. Walker, a Republican, justified the move as necessary to trim the state's budget shortfall.

Since then, unions have been fighting dozens of measures around the country targeting labor rights. They failed earlier this year to recall Walker from office, but a judge has declared parts of the Wisconsin law unconstitutional.

It wasn't all good news for unions on election night. They lost a first-of-its-kind ballot effort in Michigan that would have enshrined collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. Unions saw the measure as a way to prevent Republicans from passing a right-to-work law that would have ended unions' ability to collect fees from nonunion workers. Critics said it would cause the repeal of dozens of state laws and interfere with local officials trying to control their budgets. One union-backed group spent at least $6.5 million on TV ads supporting it.

Labor's victories came at a steep cost. Unions and other Democratic interests poured at least $75 million into the effort to defeat California's Proposition 32. Unions are not so much thriving as surviving.

"Thanks to union dues, it's a self-replenishing stream," said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. "They still have a sea of money to spend and they prove quite adept at winning political arguments."

After playing defense in more than a dozen states for the past two years, unions see no other choice. Public employee unions now make up a majority of the nation's 14.8 million union members, but they have taken a hit as state and local budgets shrink, forcing layoffs and cuts to salaries and pension benefits.

The 1.3-million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation's largest public employee union, has lost about 10 percent of its active members since 2009. The National Education Association, which represents public school teachers, lost more than 100,000 members since 2010.

"I'm not going to be cocky about anything," AFL-CIO political director Mike Podhorzer said. "There are still plenty of Republicans in office and we don't expect them to change their spots overnight." Next to winning Obama's re-election, defeating Proposition 32 in California was labor's top goal. Prohibiting unions from collecting money for political activities through paycheck deductions would have deprived them of tens of millions of dollars for donations to candidates and financing campaigns.

In New Hampshire, unions were worried that the state legislature had passed right-to-work measures in the previous two legislative sessions. But lawmakers could not override a veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch. Hassan's victory gives unions similar protection.

In Minnesota, gaining Democratic control of the state legislature could help the Service Employees International Union change a state law to allow the union to organize more than 12,000 day care providers in the state.

Perhaps the largest issue looming for public employee unions in the next few years is the shortfall in government pension systems, which have sunk deeper into the red as the recession has taken its toll. Cities and states around the country — led by Republicans and Democrats alike — have been reducing promised benefits to public workers and retirees as they attempt to cover shortfalls. States need about $1.4 trillion to fulfill their pension obligations, according to the Pew Center on the States.

Over the summer, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board approved new accounting rules for pensions that will make some underfunded plans look worse when the rules begin to go into effect late next year. State and local governments will have to print their total unfunded liability on the front of financial statements.

"It's going to help identify those plans in serious trouble, which could help policy makers and the public be aware of the need for action," said David Draine, a researcher who tracks pension changes at the Pew Center.

That could increase pressure on elected officials to reduce benefits and make bargaining more difficult for unions.



To: Farmboy who wrote (59161)11/20/2012 11:27:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I heard that Grupo Bimbo in interested in buying the Twinkies brand. Roughly two years ago Hostess thwarted a takeover attempt from Grupo Bimbo. (Grupo Bimbo is a Mexican baking conglomerate.)



To: Farmboy who wrote (59161)2/21/2013 9:15:43 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Union That Bankrupted Hostess to Receive Generous Government Subsidies
Ashe Schow
February 21, 2013 at 5:30 pm

The union whose strike led to the bankruptcy of Hostess last year has just been awarded government benefits from a program few qualify for.

Last year, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused to accept concessions that would have kept Hostess in business. The company had tried to cut costs as it faced high labor expenses, rising ingredient costs, and decreasing sales. The Teamsters union accepted the concessions, but the Bakery union would not, choosing to strike. Unable to continue operating, Hostess filed for bankruptcy.

Now those who helped bring down an American icon will receive generous, taxpayer-funded benefits from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. These generous benefits come in addition to existing unemployment insurance, job placement, and job training programs. TAA benefits include:
•Up to two years of job training in an approved training program,
•Up to 52 weeks of Trade Readjustment Allowances for workers in job training,
•Job search and relocation allowances,
•A refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of a worker’s health insurance premiums in qualifying health plans, and
•A two-year wage insurance program that partly replaces workers’ earnings if they accept lower-paying jobs.

Small wonder David Durkee, president of the Bakery union, does not think his newly unemployed members’ “income situation is any different than it would have been if they were [still] working for the company.”

But why are Hostess employees getting extra benefits intended for workers who lost their jobs due to trade?

The Department of Labor claims that “increased imports of baked products contributed importantly to the company’s sales declines and worker separations.” That is quite a stretch. The Atkins diet surely did more damage to the company than trade did. Even if imports contributed to Hostess’s downfall, there is no escaping the fact that the company tried to adjust but the union rejected its efforts. The job losses had little to do with foreign trade.

Nonetheless, the Administration is providing trade-related benefits to employees who put themselves out of work.

As Heritage’s David Muhlhausen and James Sherk write:


Under TAA, the government taxes all Americans to provide especially generous benefits to a selected few.

blog.heritage.org