I notice that with the layoff of 18,500 workers much more will be dealt a blow. Not really covered at all. Now for example; each truck must be purchased, each driver must have uniforms, each truck has a computer($2000-6000 each) and printer. Suppliers of raw food materials. Maintenance help for trucks and production equipment. Plastics for packaging and printed boxes. This will have a ripple not to mention people who are owed money.
Being a minority has helped them here in this country. Weston wanted to purchase Holsum bread but couldn't because he would have too much control over the market. No such problem for Group Bimbo. Teamsters currently enjoy a working relationship with Group Bimbo. So bringing Hostess into the fold is possible especially when union workers are involved. The union could kick in money to help the deal along. Non union workers, sorry bye, bye. Flowers would be messy. In my opinion not likely(non union).
The brands "most likely will be purchased by a competitor that will bolt the additional sales to a more efficient delivery system," David Pauker, a food industry restructuring specialist, tells Reuters. "The company itself won't survive."
In other words, someone will buy the name. So the union won't find a 'white knight' to rescue the entity previously known as Hostess. It appears the bankruptcy judge has thrown the union a life preserver by directing further talks. I doubt the 'triumphant' [we won by sticking together] union culture with the same 'leadership' will produce anything that can last, too much emotion, no rational thought invested in the enterprise.
IIUC, the bigger picture is that, as per the revampment of Twinkies + other US Products under non-US foreign ownership, the Bammer + Congress will be demanded to void or ignore right-to-work Regs in favor of mandatory, company-wide union membership???
Subjectively, its no different that justifying the setting up in 2015 or ASAP afterward of OWG, anti-Nationalist "Global Federal Unions" e.g. NAU + similar. "MUTUAL" OR "SHARED" CHAOS/SURVIVAL + FOREIGN DOMINATION OF THE US DOMESTIC ECON IS ALL BUT OFFICIALLY PERMANENT LEST THERE BE NO NAU OR WORKPLACE UNIONS = "COLLECTIVES".
No, the Champ will step in and engineer a stealth nationalization to protect the "workers rights" ...read save the unions, ala General Motors. Bet the demographics of how this will aid the Dems are being worked out as we speak.
I'd rather see Bimbo Bakeries USA take them - they already run Ball Park (buns), Boboli (pizza breads, Earthgrains, Entenmann's, Mrs Bairds (big in Texas), Orowheat, Sara Lee, Thomas' English Muffins.
Another better one is Flowers (in Georgia), who rescued and turned around the dying TastyKakes brand.
I'd rather see the brands bought by successful bakers who already have the expertise, production and distribution systems in place to continue the brands. The VC's will kill them with debt, just like they did the original Hostess company (its that Vulture Capitalists debt combined with the unions and poor management during the mid 2000's that killed Hostess)
The majority of state governors are Republicans, and they have the power to disarm the health-care law.
Champions of ObamaCare want Americans to believe that the president's re-election ended the battle over the law. It did no such thing. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act won't be fully repealed while Barack Obama is in office, but the administration is heavily dependent on the states for its implementation.
Republicans will hold 30 governorships starting in January, and at last week's meeting of the Republican Governors Association they made it clear that they remain highly critical of the health law. Some Republican governors--including incoming RGA Chairman Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Ohio's John Kasich, Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Maine's Paul LePage--have already said they won't do the federal government's bidding. Several Democratic governors, including Missouri's Jay Nixon and West Virginia's Earl Ray Tomblin, have also expressed serious concerns.
Talk of the law's inevitability is intended to pressure these governors into implementing it on the administration's behalf. But states still have two key choices to make that together will put them in the driver's seat: whether to create state health-insurance exchanges, and whether to expand Medicaid. They should say "no" to both.
At its core, ObamaCare is a massive entitlement expansion. Between vastly increased Medicaid eligibility and new premium subsidies, it is expected to bring 30 million more people onto the federal government's entitlement rolls. The law anticipates that the states will take on the burden of implementing the expansions, but states can opt out of both.
Running the exchanges would be an administrative nightmare for states, requiring a complicated set of rules, mandates, databases and interfaces to establish eligibility, funnel subsidies, and facilitate purchases. All of this would have to take place under broad and often incoherent statutory requirements and federal regulations that have yet to be written.
The exchanges would create unsustainable pressures on each state's insurance market, treating similarly situated people differently by providing far greater subsidies for those in the exchanges than those in employer plans--yielding perverse incentives that distort consumer and employer decisions and increase costs.
States would endure all this simply to become functionaries of the federal government. The idea that creating state exchanges would give states control over their insurance markets is a fantasy. The states would be enforcing a federal law and federal regulations, with very little room for independent judgment.
Governors know this. A group of them has already indicated that they will not build the exchanges, and several more seemed ready to opt out as the administration's deadline for state decisions approached on Nov. 16. Predictably, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to head them off by extending the deadline to Dec. 14. She will try to use the extra month to twist governors' arms. They should resist.
By declining to build exchanges, the states would pass the burden and costs of the exchanges to the administration that sought this law. And it is far from clear that the administration could operate the exchanges on its own.
Congress didn't allocate money for administering federal exchanges, and the law as written seems to prohibit federally run exchanges from providing subsidies to individuals. The administration insists that it can provide those subsidies anyway. But if the courts read the plain words of the statute, then federal exchanges couldn't really function.
Thus states that refuse to create their own exchanges would effectively be repealing a large part of the law--sparing their citizens from the job-killing employer mandate and from assaults on their religious liberty. In some cases people would even be spared from the individual mandate to buy coverage, since in the absence of exchange subsidies more families would qualify for exemptions from the mandate.
The Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, would throw millions of additional Americans into a system that is already bankrupting state governments and increasing costs in the private-insurance market. Medicaid's payments for services are so low that many existing beneficiaries have trouble finding physicians and other health-care providers who will accept them as patients. Enrolling more people without reform will push the system to the point of collapse.
In refusing the Medicaid expansion, governors should notify Washington that doing so means freeing themselves of ObamaCare's "Maintenance of Effort" requirements. These would prohibit states participating in the Medicaid expansion from reforming their Medicaid systems to reduce costs.
Instead of following the Obama administration's plan, states should seek real reform. For example, they should demand that Washington transform the federal portion of Medicaid for non-disabled and non-elderly beneficiaries into a uniform block grant, with state discretion over eligibility and benefits. The goal should be to turn Medicaid into a premium-assistance program rather than government-run insurance. Medicaid could then be used to help people enroll in mainstream insurance plans. This is the way to help the low-income uninsured get the same kind of coverage as other Americans.
President Obama won re-election and Democrats maintained control of the Senate this month, but the states hold the future of ObamaCare in their hands. Knowing the harm the law would do to their citizens, to the economy and to American health care, governors should refuse to become its enablers.
Mr. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Levin is a fellow at the EPPC and editor of National Affairs
...databases and interfaces to establish eligibility...
Can anybody think of a government computer project that came in on time and under budget? Every one that I ever heard of cost millions upon millions of dollars. There always seems to be a heckuva lot of fudge factor in these types of projects.
Think about this: the Fed program will require computer systems that far exceed any that have yet been implemented outside of classified ones.
The FBI Virtual Case File System (started in 2001, cancelled as a complete failure in 2005, started over in 2006, and was finally introduced in March 2012.
IRS Modernization -The IRS launched its Business System Modernization program about 25 years ago. By 1995 and $2 billion in expenditures, only marginal improvements were made. In 1999, an IRS assistant commissioner called the modernization program a failure, and said most of its technology did not work. By then, the IRS was starting over with a new $5 billion contract that has continued with mixed results. And remember - the IRS will be enforcing the "penalty" phase of this.
Then in Texas, the Health and Human Services issued a contract valued at $899 million over five years with Accenture Ltd in 2005 - the program was supposed to determine eligibility and maintain an eligibility computer system, furnish call center services and provide enrollment broker services for health insurance in the state. It got scaled back project the following year due to failures in developing the systems. The project was plagued by complaints of slow service and the denial of benefits to eligible recipients, and was abandoned in March 2007.
This thing is going to be an unholy mess - in addition to being willfully ignorant of the huge negative impacts on health-care availability and large increases in costs, the idiots that passed Obamacare certainly had no understanding of what it will take to implement the system. They seem to think passing a law will magically make complex systems appear. Wrong. Reality is going to bite hard.
No. But it's lovely the journalist gets invited to dine with such elite company.
[NY Times] Is François Hollande more like Mariano Rajoy or Mario Monti? In other words, is the French socialist president condemned to be always behind the curve with reform, as the conservative Spanish prime minister is? Or can he get ahead of it, as the technocratic Italian premier has?
I put this question to my fellow guests at a dinner in Gay Paree last week. La Belle France is not at imminent risk of blowing up, as wrongly implied by the British magazine The Economist, with its latest dramatic front cover showing baguettes tied together like sticks of dynamite with a lighted fuse. It is a much richer country than Spain. And its people are more willing to pay their taxes than are the Italians. French 10-year borrowing costs are only 2.1 percent, compared with Italia's 4.9 percent and Spain's 5.9 percent.
Actually France collects taxes against property which tends to retard falls in the affordability of land, without the deadweight effect of taxes on commerce.
France's main problems are not it's high business taxes*, but it's regulatory culture where so much needs a bureaucrats approval.
Federal authorities investigating U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. continue to "peel back layers of the onion" in the case, according to a source close to the financial probe who described it as an ongoing investigation.
The source said Thursday that federal investigators are "going down every rat hole," and that the FBI crew investigating "is not yet finished digging."
The federal probe, which began before Jackson took medical leave from Congress on June 10, first looked at activity in the congressman's campaign fund. But it has since gone into other areas, said the source, who would not elaborate.
Broad, sweeping subpoenas were issued in the Jackson investigation, including on financial institutions that controlled Jackson accounts both in and out of Washington, D.C., the source said.
Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed reported last week that Jackson is in the midst of plea discussions. "No one has pled guilty, but plea discussions are ongoing," a source told Sneed.
Meanwhile, investigators are also examining what role the congressman's wife, Ald. Sandi Jackson (7th), played in the finances, but the source described the inquiry into her so far as a "normal" part of investigating a main target.
Sun-Times first reported last month that the FBI in the Washington, D.C., field office had been investigating Jackson due to alleged "suspicious activity" in his finances.
The revelation came after Jackson checked into the Mayo Clinic, saying he suffered from bipolar depression. His 2nd District constituency, which includes some of the poorer areas of the city, has gone without representation since June.
Jackson has missed the first days of this week's lame-duck session in Congress and people close to him say they don't think he's ever returning.
Jackson was temporarily back in Washington last month when he was spotted at a nightclub drinking with other women. He returned to the Mayo Clinic but was again released, the facility said Tuesday.
People close to Jackson said he is still getting treated on an out-patient basis.
Jackson did not campaign for reelection and still coasted to victory on Nov. 6.
Thats where ya gotta go to catch a rat.
And make no mistake about it, he's a rat.
A chip off the old block as they say.
And he still got re-elected.
After the crash we need to do some serious housecleaning here in America. These 5th column traitors must be kicked out of our government and society.
5th column traitors must be kicked out of our government and society.
Quite difficult to do when the Rule of Law has been abandoned and tribal control has been firmly established. Historically, this type of governance does not easily self-repair. I see no recuperative indicators, not one.
Disgraced former Labour MP Margaret Moran cheated the taxpayer out of £53,000 in one of the worst cases of fraud to emerge from the parliamentary expenses scandal, a jury found yesterday.
But despite the damning verdict, 57-year-old Moran will not be punished after a judge ruled she was too depressed to stand trial.
As a consequence, the former MP for Luton South will not even receive a criminal record although the jury in the rare 'trial of issue' ruled that she had committed 21 counts of fraud.
On 22 July 2003, Task Force 20, aided by troops of the United States Army 101st Airborne Division under command of General Dave Petreaus, had a showdown with Saddam's sons Uday, Qusay and Qusay. These two buggers are no more and the world is now a better place.
Please tell us about your West Point appointment and rather abbreviated military career Mr. Truscott.
Roger that 2x4! Lucian the IV (why do men need numbers after their names?) was a grad of the USAMA Class of 1969. He was kicked out of the Army a year later, which has had a chilling effect on his attitude toward the Army as well as his writings on military and policy matters. A birdcage liner factory makes an excellent pulpit for him.
Mr. Obama's administration has placed itself between a rock and a hard place. The administration's reopolitik foreign policy has decided that the Turks are needed for dealing with Syria and possibly Iran; Mr. Erdogan's ego is being stroked by the White House by involving his government with Gaza. That's going to feed the Turks' desire to become the de facto Islamic power in the Islamic region.
Stroke means cash, and cash means Obama goes hat in hand to Congress, the side that insists on a budget.
Ah, the Islamic region.
Egypt is a borderline failed state, one step away from starvation. Syria is in a civil war, as are Yemen and Sudan (still). Iraq is coyly cuddling up to Iran. Jordan is facing its own Muslim Brotherhood-instigated riots as a result of trying to fix its own economic issues. Lebanon's various warlords are gearing up for another alleyway fight.
North Africa, which has been ignored by both the White House and the diplomatic set at Foggy Bottom, has both Salafists and Al Qaeda's Maghreb franchise trying to set up caliphates. That will drag most of the continent (already dealing with Somalia) into another long and costly war. Libya could go either way, but most likely it'll end up looking like the rest of North Africa minus Algeria, albeit with more weapons.
The Saudis are watching everyone else. Qatar has its own agenda, which doesn't involve chatty night-time talks with the Oval Office.
We won't mention Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's best to avert one's eyes from an air crash into a daycare center at a refinery.
To make matters worse, all sides will likely end up being hanged by their strings of words. If Hamas continues to insist that the politics of the souk don't apply to it, then they will get what they want: a ground operation by Israel.
This is going to put everyone else in a hell of a bind.
Morsi is going to have to accede to the thugs of the Muslim Brotherhood and back his own words. That is something Egypt cannot really afford to do either militarily and economically.
Media like the NYT, and the Western Left, are going to have to double-down on their rhetoric, since they nailed one (rhetorical) foot to the floor with this last round of bash-Israel rhetoric. They have no other place to go now, except to cover Gaza.
I won't speak for Israel, but it's almost certain that, unlike their Palestinian enemy, they've learned from their earlier operations (against Hesb'allah in Lebanon and Hamas.) And both are now much more heavily armed.
And Mr. Obama will have to - surprise - face a decision: Bring Israel to heel and risk both a domestic and Israeli backlash, or find a way to placate the Islamic world by other means.
Either decision will be hard. If he brings Israel to heel without stopping Hamas' gambit cold, he will alienate both the Republicans and the pro-Israel faction. He needs the former at this point because he faces a potential economic storm. He will need the latter, to a lesser extent, for support during his next administration. It will also be another wedge issue for a divided electorate. He can't bribe the citizenry or Congress, nor can he bribe Israel, nor the Islamic world. He can't cajole any of them. He can't even use his Presidential influence. The "call from the President of the United States" doesn't have the same power, especially since Mr. Obama has quietly euthanized it.
President Obama is going to have to choose between Turkey (and Egypt) or Israel, and do so publicly. It's going to be interesting watching the media spin that decision.
I can see the Pegster cranking up the old Spin Machine now...
In any case, the message from all parties involved appears to be: "Mr. Obama, we've reserved a nice place for your administration at the kid's table. And by the way, you're paying for the broken dishes."
And The Smartest Man in the Room will still get blamed for whatever happens. Sometimes life is absolutely fair.