Venture VS Vulture, are our angel investors losing touch?

I am somewhat at a loss of words for the poor folks that worked at Hostess.  18K+ jobs lost.  And who takes the blame?  If you read the CEO headlines, it was the unions.  But, as always, there is more to this story than meets the eye.  Look behind the CEO's words to find the truth.

Word has gotten out that during the last few months of their latest (2nd I believe, sometimes referred to as Chapter 22) bankruptcy is the little presented fact that the C levels gave themselves a 3X salary increase.  Here is another interesting tidbit, there are many stories that factories were set to close anyway as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, not because of the striking workers, but because the loans that were made to revive aging factories were used to provide the top 9 execs with up to 300% increases to their salaries - all while workers were taking wage cuts.  Another thing to know that has not necessarily made it into the papers or major news organizations (and I can guarantee you'll never hear this on FAUX NEWS) is that the venture capitalist organization that was supposed to be helping guide the company through its bankruptcy pulled a "Bain" and took out enough capital and restructuring loans the first time through bankruptcy so as to place Hostess in a position to have more debt when they exited Chapter 11 (first time through) than when they entered.

From a Reuters article comes the following info (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-bankruptcy-repeats-idUSTRE8251N12012030)"Hostess faced some similar problems. The company filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, citing declining sales, high food costs, excess capacity and worker benefit expenses. It tackled some issues - closing bakeries and simplifying some union contracts -- but it did not deal with its debt. It went into the first bankruptcy with $648.5 million in debt, and came out with more than $800 million, according to court documents.  As a result, the company's second bankruptcy-- after less than three years under the control of private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings -- came as no surprise to some workers."

So, what happened the second time through?  Well, management went after their union contracts for one, and the following happened (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/13/4983174/hostess-continues-pattern-of-misinformation.html) "BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256. Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt.  A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive."

You can also read here (http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Greed/Trumka-Giving-Thanks-for-Hostess-Workers) about how the workers have actually stood up to Wall Street greed: "Wall Street investors first came onto the scene with Hostess about a decade ago, purchasing the company and then loading it with debt.  All the while, its executives talked of investments in new equipment, new research and new delivery trucks, but those improvements never materialized.  Instead, the executives planned to give themselves bonuses and demanded pay cuts and benefit cuts from the workers, who haven’t had a raise in eight years.  In 2011, Hostess earned profits of more than $2.5 billion but ended the year with a loss of $341 million as it struggled to pay the interest on $1 billion in debt. This year, the company sought bankruptcy protection, the second time in eight years.  Still, the CEO who brought on the latest bankruptcy got a raise while Hostess demanded that its workers accept a 30 percent pay and benefits cut."

So who wins in all of this?  It appears as if all of those supposed "Job Creators" have won.  And even more than that, the big business leader angel investor "Bain-like" companies once again show their true colors.  And guess who really pays?  All of those who want to borrow money to start a business, or reach out to be small business job creators.  Because every big business that borrows money to make its way through bankruptcy and borrows to pay execs instead of reinvesting and fails causes an increase in interest rates for the 97% of small business that do support our country and wish to expand our employee base.  That doesn't sound like the path forward to me.

One big question.....does this mean that the path forward and upward involves the upper 2% stealing from bankrupt companies and forcing the 98% to pay for that?  Sounds like they get a "rebate" anyway, just not through their savior Mitt Romney, or through tax reform.  Maybe it is time to look at how bankruptcies should be managed, and unfortunately for anyone that wants less government (Repubs, right?) having to bring in the government means another group providing oversight, another agency to be created.  Sounds like (as has been proven in the past) Repubs increase government through their actions instead of decreasing government through responsible leadership.  So who has lost touch?  I'll let you figure that out.

Rush and the Repubs are Lost

11/7/2012
An open letter to Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party.

Rush, I listened to your confusion and lack of understanding on the radio today, the day after the 2012 election, because I honestly wanted to hear what your reaction would be to the results.  I guess I was a little surprised at the confusion you demonstrated during your broadcast (which followed the same confusion I've heard over subsequent days from many conservative media outlets). I think you are all substituting your theory that all Democrats want a free lunch for what most of us on the opposite side actually used the election for.  If I might be so bold, I'll explain what I was fighting for as much as fighting against with my vote.

I was fighting against the well-known fact that the Republican Party decided not to play well with the Democrats.  You might remember 4 years ago when you decided to rant and rave on the radio about the fact that you were going to push for no holds barred obstructionism.  I recall you and others going on the air and to the press and stating how you were not going to work within the reasonable expectation of compromise that politics and all politicians should be ready to support (a mainstay that most politicians have forgotten today).  Because of that obstructionism, I would not seriously consider any republican candidate this time around.

I was fighting against big money in this election.  There is no way I wanted to see any United States election be bought by the big money that was being poured into the conservative fight.  I did not want a decision like "Citizens United" to work, as a matter of fact after this election I hope the country sees how much money went into these campaigns for a Democratic gain.  And I will continue to push against this.  To think that a corporation is a person is as ridiculous as the conservatives believing (with no real evidence) that there is an in-person voter fraud problem in this country, and that the path to win is through fraud and voter disillusionment.

I was fighting for the freedom of women all over this land - making sure they have the ability to determine what they do or do not want to do with their bodies.  I will always fight against the government that feels they have a right to put themselves between a woman and her right to determine her own path forward.  I am a Catholic that is also an American.  And any American that wants to take away any right to decide what I or any other American wants to do with their body is not a decision I should make.  Instead, I should be teaching responsibility and consequence when and where it is most effective.  Sorry, but if Republicans and conservatives want to partner with the NRA and allow guns that are meant only to kill as many as possible in a short amount of time as is possible for sale in the US, then don't be surprised when there are also people out there that don't want to bring a child into this world and will do what they feel is necessary to prevent it.  Yes, I know I'm mixing 2 political positions here, I'm demonstrating to you the absurdity of the stance you are taking.  I wish that there was no need for another abortion to ever occur in this country and on this planet, but the reality is that it is not my decision to make.  If we guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have to let the people responsible for bringing that life into the world to make whatever decision they feel they must at the appropriate time, regardless of your own belief. PERIOD, end of story.

I was fighting for the freedom to marry for anyone.  Again, being a Catholic, I do not have the right to condemn a person or impugn their lifestyle choice (only one person does, and he'll do that when he is damn well ready), because as an American I should be making sure that if I have a right to do something that I not stand in the way of anyone's ability to do the same within reason.  And I ask that conservatives don't stick their faces into the bedroom where they don't belong, regardless of their beliefs.  I seem to recall a day not too far in the past where there were certain individuals who thought that skin color denoted or dictated the mental acuity and the capabilities of that person.  I also seem to recall that being abolished, not the least of which because it was ridiculous. I also was told by my parents (white parents) that even though I was all of 6 months old at the time, that our entire family marched in the civil rights marches of that day to show support, that same spirit of equality for all survives today.  All they are asking for is the ability to have the same rights as anyone else that is loved, married, has a loved one in pain and in the hospital, provides for financially, on and on.

I know you won't do a thing about your viewpoint, but until and unless you recognize you're living in the past, you will be doomed to repeat it.

P.S.  I am a very self sufficient person, and don't want a handout, hell I paint my own house when it needs painting because I want to save a little money and enjoy the fruits of my own labor (besides, no one is going to do it the same way nor to the same level of quality that I am because I'm doing it for myself), mow my own lawn, fix what I can because I can, but I do want those that are in dire straits, those who have worked their entire lives, and those who cannot fend for themselves to be able to depend on us as a nation to support them.  I think it is something that the greatest generation would gladly support. I am not waiting for Santa Claus, I can be Santa Claus by backing a social safety net for our country through some redistribution. Unlike you I guess.....

P.P.S.  Added on 11/19/2012 AND one additional postscript. The programs that provide support are redistribution only in the fact that they are "PAY-IN" programs. They are not free. Anyone who has ever worked pays into the system, and should be able to depend on getting something out of that system. My dollar value today is submitted against what a fair return for those services should be in the future. It is not a handout. So anyone who feels like they got a gift from Obama just doesn't know how this "redistribution" system works. Time to take a civics class again America.....