North Carolina has experienced extraordinary economic growth in recent years, but now is no time to rest on our laurels.
Good evening,
North Carolina has experienced extraordinary economic growth in recent years, but now is no time to rest on our laurels.
While other states are redoubling their recruitment efforts, reforming their tax codes, and retooling their education and transportation systems, our state is facing new headwinds. Domestic and international reaction to a new trade war will temper confidence, and could raise costs for both households and businesses.
Facing these challenges, the General Assembly should continue to make North Carolina a better place to live, work, and invest, by fully protecting the right to work.
In a recent John Locke Foundation report, our economists detailed how North Carolina currently licenses more occupations than all but 10 other states. This makes our labor markets less competitive, raising consumer prices by up to 16%, and reducing employment by about 42,500 jobs.
So how can we reduce burdensome regulations and increase our competitiveness?
Here are 3 recommendations:
The General Assembly should pass House Bill 763, the “Neighbor State License Recognition Act”, which would establish occupational license reciprocity with neighboring states. This would allow NC residents, licensed in one of those states, to obtain a professional license without more costly training and testing requirements.
The General Assembly should also pass Senate Bill 451, to reduce unnecessary certification training and regulations for licensed professionals.
Lawmakers should adopt a more sweeping “Right to Earn a Living Act”. This would shift the regulatory paradigm altogether, placing the burden on the state to demonstrate the necessity of licensing.
North Carolina’s future prosperity depends on bold steps to fully protect the right to work and make our economy more competitive at a time of increasing uncertainty. Together, we can ensure our state remains a leader in innovation and opportunity.
You can read more about the right to work and licensing reform here, here, and here.
Tariffs are dominating the headlines these days, as President Trump wields them in an effort to revive American manufacturing
However, if a major goal of the president’s policy agenda is to revive American manufacturing, we must make it less expensive to “make in America”
Tariffs don’t punish foreign manufacturers as much as they squeeze U.S. companies that rely on imported parts
Instead of raising input costs by increasing taxes, regulations, and tariffs, 2 possible reforms stand out:
Reduce the federal corporate income tax rate
Repeal the protectionist Jones Act
Lower corporate taxes = stronger manufacturing base
The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, which discourages domestic investment and weakens our global manufacturing competitiveness
Reducing the federal rate to 12%, making full expensing permanent, and eliminating inefficient subsidies would attract investment to the United States
Lower taxes aren’t corporate handouts; they’re a down payment on national competitiveness, helping American factories compete on cost without resorting to tariffs or protectionism
Repeal the Jones Act to lower shipping costs
The 1920 Jones Act requires all goods transported between U.S. ports by ship to be U.S.-crewed, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-registered
Consequently, only 56 tankers and 23 container ships serve a country with 12,000+ miles of coastline and vast inland waterways
The law raises prices, delays shipments, and makes American goods less competitive internationally
Puerto Rico and Hawaii face sky-high prices for goods and fuel
While basic commodities, produced abundantly in the U.S., are imported from abroad due to internal shipping costs
The reality is simple: the Jones Act is corporate welfare costing the country dearly, and repealing it would increase competition, lower costs, and improve logistics
A strong industrial base is built on competitive costs, stable regulations, and free enterprise - if Washington is serious about a manufacturing renaissance, then it should focus on real reform: lower corporate taxes, modernizing the tax code, and repealing the Jones Act
The legal challenges for the North Carolina Supreme Court have been difficult to follow and generated a lot of confusion, so it's worthwhile to step back and consider what’s actually being litigated
The case revolves around individual voters personally challenged by Judge Griffin, not a broad challenge to voting laws or all voters in North Carolina
The April 4 Court of Appeals ruling appears (as now modified by the NC Supreme Court) to apply only to those on Griffin’s original protest lists, not to all voters in similar circumstances
The estimated individuals affected by this ruling would be:
1,409 military or overseas voters without ID (limited only to Guilford County)
And 267 overseas voters who have never resided in North Carolina
The limited scope of the Court of Appeals ruling means this will only apply to those directly challenged in Griffin’s protest.
Only voters in Guilford county are guaranteed to be affected by the Military/overseas voter ID challenge
The ruling does invite future election law challenges to take a “wait-and-see approach”
Instead of challenging established law before an election, individuals would be incentivized to challenge these rules after an election and have them apply selectively to challenged voters
Griffin raised important concerns, but there were better legal paths to address them before the election
Incomplete registration concerns could not be acted on by the State Board of Elections due to federal restrictions within 90 days of a federal election
A separate lawsuit, Kivett v. State Board of Elections, is already addressing the issue of never-resident voters, making Griffin’s challenge duplicative
The only unique aspect of Griffin’s complaint, the lack of ID from military/overseas voters, had not been addressed through the proper legal channels ahead of the election
Allowing such selective and retroactive rule changes would cause voters to lose trust in our election system
The North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) is reforming the petition process to address past issues
The SBE wants to add a new chapter to its administrative code, focused solely on petitions
The new rules’ purpose is to make the petition review process more systematic, after problems with the current process were exposed ahead of the 2024 election
The rules focus on six areas:
General Rules - County boards must verify petitions for new parties, unaffiliated candidates, write-ins, and those filing without fees
Verification - Only wet ink signatures are accepted, and signers can remove their names before the board makes a final decision
New Political Parties - Parties must submit affidavits and documentation about their purpose
Unaffiliated Candidates - Candidates must meet qualifications and residency requirements, with their signatures verified
Write-In Candidates - Similar rules apply to write-in candidates as unaffiliated candidates
Filing Without Fees - The board will inform candidates whether they meet requirements for filing without paying the fee
There are opportunities for public participation and comment on these proposed rules
A public hearing will be held on April 14, 2025, for people to comment on the proposed rules
Comments can also be submitted online, via email, or by mail, with a deadline of May 16, 2025
