Views

Ruling Could Lighten Carolinians’ Load

Details

Tuesday, 03 March 2026

Written by John Hood

When the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling in the “emergency tariff” case, President Donald Trump called the decision “ridiculous,” its reasoning “stupid,” and the justices who wrote or supported it “fools,” “lapdogs,” and the agents of nefarious foreign powers.
At the same time, Trump and other defenders of his protectionist policies insisted that the 6-3 decision was “irrelevant” and that “all of those tariffs remain,” because the administration has or will soon cite other statutory authority to reapply them.
These two sets of claims are, at best, in tension. The president does, indeed, possess some legal authority to impose taxes on imported goods, authority specifically assigned to the executive branch to address national security or concerns about illegal trade practices. But these tariff powers are more cumbersome to exercise and limited in scope than the “Liberation Day” taxes he initially sought to impose.
And the latest 15% tax on most imports Trump is now seeking to apply to replace much of the revenue loss from the Supreme Court decision, relies on a 1974 law that gives a president the power to impose tariffs for up to 150 days to address “balance-of-payments deficits.” But the United States does not have a balance-of-payment deficit. We haven’t had such a deficit in more than 50 years, ever since we let the value of the dollar float on international currency markets rather than fixing the exchange rate to gold or some other standard.
A balance-of-payments deficit isn’t equivalent to a trade deficit. The latter exists when Americans buy more goods and services produced in other countries than Americans sell to consumers in other countries. Under floating exchange rates, the flipside of a trade deficit — formally called a current-account deficit — is almost always going to be a capital-account surplus. That is, virtually to the dollar, every $100 billion in trade deficit is offset by a net inflow of $100 billion in investment.
That’s why, contrary to popular belief, a trade deficit isn’t a signal of economic weakness. If you’re a net importer of capital investment, you will also be a net importer of goods and services. That’s what a balance of payments looks like under a system of floating exchange rates. Only when exchange rates are fixed can there be the kind of currency crisis for which the 1974 Trade Act was enacted (unnecessarily, as it turned out).
In short, Trump’s new global tariff is also illegal. When it is legally challenged, it will go poof. Ideally, the federal courts will intervene to block it.
For long-suffering North Carolina households — and for businesses that sell foreign-made goods or use them as components to produce their own goods and services — such legal relief would be most welcome. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the United States taxed imports at an average rate of about 16% before the Supreme Court ruling, generating about $2.62 trillion over the next 10 years (collected mostly from Americans in the form of higher prices and other costs). After the ruling, the average tariff rate should have dropped to 9.1%. Over time, that would have saved North Carolinians alone many billions of dollars a year.
Lower import taxes would serve our interests in other ways, as well. In a recent report published by the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina State University economist Jeffrey Dorfman observed that foreign governments often respond to American tariffs by levying their own taxes or restrictions on American imports — including pork, poultry, lumber, tobacco, cotton, sweet potatoes, and other goods produced for export by North Carolina farmers and agribusinesses. Using scenarios based on historical examples, he estimated that retaliation to American tariffs could eliminate 8,000 North Carolina jobs and impose $1.9 billion in direct and indirect costs on the state’s economy.
“The easiest way to avoid the risks from countries retaliating against the U.S. for placing restrictions on international trade,” Dorfman wrote, “is not to put restrictions on international trade in the first place.”

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Do political parties come with perks? A simple look at how local politics works

Details

Tuesday, 24 February 2026

Written by Laura Rodrigues Mussler

In recent weeks, many people have asked the same question: Why aren’t there dozens of candidate forums before the primaries like there were last year? Why don’t voters have multiple opportunities to hear from every candidate before Primary Election Day?
It’s a reasonable question, especially for voters who are engaged and trying to make informed decisions. The answer has less to do with access and more to do with how different elections are structured.
During municipal elections, forums seem to be everywhere. Community groups host them, civic organizations organize them, and candidates often appear together repeatedly. This happens because municipal elections are nonpartisan. All candidates run in the same pool, and the top two advance. That structure naturally encourages broad, community-wide forums where everyone participates together.
Primary elections in even-numbered years work very differently. In these elections, political parties are selecting their own nominees. Parties take responsibility for educating their members, hosting candidate events, and creating opportunities for voters within the party to meet and hear from those seeking the nomination. That difference alone explains why the pre-primary season feels quieter and why many conversations occur within party organizations rather than in public, community-wide settings.
This is where party affiliation becomes relevant.
Political parties are membership-based organizations. They communicate with the people they know how to reach — members, supporters, volunteers, and those who have chosen to stay connected. That is how invitations are sent and how information moves.
When a party hosts a meet and greet, a candidate night, or a casual event where voters can ask questions directly, invitations typically go to existing contacts. This is not because others are unwelcome, but because outreach requires time, people, and resources. Local parties do not have a master list of independent or unaffiliated voters with neatly organized contact information. Nor do they have unlimited funds or volunteers to personally reach every unaffiliated voter in the county. If they did, local politics would look very different — and probably involve a lot more coffee.
Party affiliation simply puts you on the radar. You receive the email. You hear about the event. You know when candidates are coming to town and where to find them. That is one of the practical benefits of party affiliation: you are more connected.
For independent or unaffiliated voters, this can feel frustrating, especially for those who are engaged and eager to learn about candidates before voting. The good news is that independents are not shut out. They are welcome — often very welcome. The difference is that the responsibility shifts slightly.
Any voter can contact local party organizations to ask about upcoming events, candidate appearances, or opportunities to learn more. Most parties are happy to share information, and a little personal outreach goes a long way.
Think of it like joining a gym. Members receive emails about class schedules, updates, and special events. Non-members can still use the equipment, but they may have to ask a few questions to find what they need. No one is hiding the treadmill.
The same idea applies to party members. Being registered with a party does not guarantee every invitation or update. Like most community organizations, parties stay connected with those who participate, attend events, and stay engaged. Being on a list only matters if there is involvement behind it.
Access grows with participation.
Regardless of registration status, staying informed usually requires taking an active role — asking questions, showing up when possible, and connecting with organizations that align with your values. These groups are communities, run by volunteers but powered by participation.
This is not about telling voters which party to choose. Independence is a valid and thoughtful choice for many people. Party affiliation is, too. It is simply about understanding the trade-offs. Party affiliation offers built-in communication and easier access during partisan election cycles. Independence offers flexibility and distance from party labels but often requires more individual effort to stay connected.
Local democracy works best when people feel welcome and participate in ways that fit their lives. At the end of the day, we share the same community. We all benefit from informed voters, and we all play a role in making civic participation accessible, welcoming, and productive.
Find the path that aligns with your beliefs. Stay curious. Engage where you can. In the end, informed voters are created through participation — not just by checking a box on a registration form.

Troy's Perspective: Honoring Rev. Dr. Aaron Johnson

Details

Tuesday, 24 February 2026

Written by Troy Williams

Rev. Dr. Aaron J. Johnson, 93, is one of those rare individuals whose life has been defined not by applause or recognition, but by steady, faithful service. His type of service seeks no attention yet still makes a significant impact. In acknowledgment of his contributions, the Fayetteville City Council honored Dr. Johnson with a City Proclamation and a coin on Monday, Feb. 9. Although he was unable to attend the meeting, Councilman D.J. Haire and Mayor Pro Tem Derrick Thompson made the official presentation to him at his home on Friday, Feb. 13.
Councilman Haire said, "Dr. Aaron Johnson is my friend. He has been a pioneer in many areas and remains a significant influencer for our Black communities!"
Communities aren't built on grand speeches; they are formed through small, consistent actions and dedicating hours behind the scenes to ensure that everyone is cared for. Dr. Johnson has embraced this truth and, in doing so, has become something invaluable: a living example of what community truly means.
Dr. Johnson was elected to three terms on the Fayetteville City Council (1979 - 1985) and served as mayor pro tem. Marshall Pitts, Fayetteville's first African American mayor, said: " As a young man who was new to the local political scene in the late 1990's, I quickly discovered that most of the established politicians of the day were anything but warm and friendly towards me; however, Rev. Johnson was just the opposite. Even though we were from different political parties and different generations, I always found him to be encouraging and supportive."
In 1960, Dr. Johnson arrived in Fayetteville to become the Pastor of Mount Sinai Missionary Baptist Church. During his time in this role, several significant developments took place: a new church building was constructed, a daycare center was established, and a housing complex for low-income families was created.
Some people spend their entire lives discussing what should be done, while others act and make it happen. Dr. Johnson dedicated his service to the community as the North Carolina Secretary of Corrections (1985 - 1992) during Governor Martin's administration. He was also appointed to the Public Telecommunications Commission, the Governor's Drug Cabinet, the Governor's Crime Commission, and various other positions.
For decades, Dr. Johnson has been a steadfast presence in our community—always showing up, helping others, and leading with humility. What makes his story even more remarkable is that he has never led with ego. Born on March 6, 1933, in Willard, NC, he grew up in humble circumstances. Dr. Johnson earned his B.A. in Social Studies from Shaw University and his B.D. in Theology from Shaw Divinity School. He also received two honorary degrees: Doctor of Divinity and Doctor of Humane Letters from Shaw University.
Throughout his journey, he has never felt the need to dominate a room or demand recognition. Instead, he leads with kindness, integrity, and a quiet strength that has earned him respect across generations.
We should honor our elders while they are still alive, not only after they are gone. This is one of those moments.
So today, we pause to say thank you.

(Photo courtesy of Troy Williams)

Demographic Challenge Isn’t Going Away

Details

Tuesday, 24 February 2026

Written by John Hood

North Carolina’s economy just posted a sizzling 5.6% growth rate. Since 2020, the average income per North Carolinian rose faster than the national and regional averages. And our headline unemployment rate in December was 3.9% — quite low by historical standards.
So why I am not all smiles? Because another important measure is heading in the wrong direction. According to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the share of working-age people who are either working or looking for a job has been dropping for nearly four years.
Before the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, North Carolina’s labor force participation rate had for many years fluctuated between 61% and 61.6%. Another measure, the ratio of employed people to the general population, rose fairly steadily from 57.5% in January 2015 to 59.2% in January 2020.
Then came the pandemic. Employment crashed for several months, then bounced back in 2021, then started declining again in 2022. As of December, just 59.2% of North Carolinians over 16 are in the labor force. The employment-to-population ratio is 56.9%. In both cases, we are below the national average.
To be clear, though, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' measures of labor force participation and employment-to-population haven’t just declined in our state. They’ve gone down in lots of other places, too. And even for the nation as a whole, while labor force participation and the employment-to-population ratio haven’t tumbled since 2022, they remain below pre-pandemic levels.
In part, these trends reflect the aging of the population. No doubt you’ve already heard some version of this story many times. We are living longer than before, and in particular, we are living longer after retirement than previous generations of Americans did. On the other end of the labor pipeline, our rates of family formation and fertility are lower than they used to be. Everything else being equal, the ratio of workers to retirees must shrink.
Why care about that? Because retirees rely on those still in the labor market to supply their needs, either directly (because they’re being cared for by children or other relatives) or indirectly (because workers pay taxes into Medicare and Social Security, staff the companies from which retirees earn investment returns, and produce the goods and services that retirees consume). Again, everything else being equal, a smaller number of workers supporting a larger number of retirees might end in economic or political catastrophe.
All things are not, however, equal. There are multiple ways out of this doom cycle. One is immigration. Importing working-aged people expands the base of the pyramid, at least for a time, and perhaps for longer than that if the newcomers have persistently higher fertility rates than native-born citizens.
Another is innovation. If we organize workers more efficiently, or make them more productive through training and technology, or supplement their labor with robotics and artificial intelligence, they may well be able to generate enough economic value not just to support non-working adults (and children) but to continue to raise their standard of living over time.
Finally, we can try to change the parameters of the scenario directly. That is, we can induce more young people to marry and have children, induce more working-aged people to get off the sidelines and back into the labor force, and induce more older people to work full- or part-time long past the standard retirement age.
On this high-stakes quiz, my answer is, unabashedly, “all of the above.” And yet I recognize that reforming immigration is politically challenging, and expanding automation and AI is becoming so. I recognize that many non-elderly people outside the labor force have caregiving responsibilities, debilitating physical or mental ailments, or other barriers that make it difficult to keep them productively employed. And I recognize that there may be limits to how much government can or should influence private decisions about marriage, fertility and retirement.
There are no easy answers — and the longer we wait, the harder they’ll get.

Editor’s note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).