1stRambo
Gold Member
- Feb 8, 2015
- 6,221
- 1,019
Yo, this is your "Socialist Leaders" hard at work destroying the U.S.A. Business Sector, Regulation on top of Regulation, you idiots need to get an Education!!!
The New York Times Publishes Another Misleading Story About Nail Salons
Are there no reporters at the paper other than Sarah Maslin Nir who can cover the issue?
Jim Epstein|Nov. 10, 2015 1:28 pm
New York Times reporter Sarah Maslin Nir has written another negative article on the nail salon industry. And once again she gets the story wrong. The article informs readers that Assemblyman Ron Kim (D-District 40) crafted a state law that imposed a new insurance mandate on nail salons. When shop owners started to send him political donations, Nir claims, Kim switched sides and reversed his stance.
The implication is that the only reason Kim came to oppose more government regulation is that he was morally compromised by campaign cash.
In fact, the legislative record shows that Kim didn’t reverse his stance. The insurance mandate was thrust on Kim and the rest of the state legislature by the governor’s office through an executive order. As the official markups on the bill show, Kim inserted language into the bill back in May that was intended to weaken the governor’s ability to enforce the insurance mandate.
Kim has been helping the nail salon industry fight the government’s regulatory crackdown from the outset. Has he been defending the industry simply because he wants more contributions? There’s no way to ever know someone's true motivations, but Kim’s personal background—his immigrant family found success running a chain of nail shops —is another plausible explanation. Not to mention, Kim’s district is home to many nail salon workers and store owners. It’s hardly surprising that he would be concerned with protecting the livelihoods of his constituents.
The New York Times Publishes Another Misleading Story About Nail Salons
"GTP"
The New York Times Publishes Another Misleading Story About Nail Salons
Are there no reporters at the paper other than Sarah Maslin Nir who can cover the issue?
Jim Epstein|Nov. 10, 2015 1:28 pm
The implication is that the only reason Kim came to oppose more government regulation is that he was morally compromised by campaign cash.
In fact, the legislative record shows that Kim didn’t reverse his stance. The insurance mandate was thrust on Kim and the rest of the state legislature by the governor’s office through an executive order. As the official markups on the bill show, Kim inserted language into the bill back in May that was intended to weaken the governor’s ability to enforce the insurance mandate.
Kim has been helping the nail salon industry fight the government’s regulatory crackdown from the outset. Has he been defending the industry simply because he wants more contributions? There’s no way to ever know someone's true motivations, but Kim’s personal background—his immigrant family found success running a chain of nail shops —is another plausible explanation. Not to mention, Kim’s district is home to many nail salon workers and store owners. It’s hardly surprising that he would be concerned with protecting the livelihoods of his constituents.
The New York Times Publishes Another Misleading Story About Nail Salons
"GTP"
