Another North Carolina elections bill, approved by a House committee, has stalled amid opposition from protesters and lawmakers who object to several provisions, including one that would allow the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session. Wait. What? As lawmakers pursued competing approaches to election reform—with Republicans seeking to tighten voting requirements and Democrats advocating for fewer barriers to voting—the bill appeared poised to advance through the House committee process. However, the measure lost momentum after dozens of protesters turned out to voice their opposition. House Bill 958, which proposes changes to North Carolina's election laws, received a favorable recommendation from the House Election Law Committee on Tuesday, June 16, and was referred to the House Rules Committee. However, the measure never reached the House floor before the legislative session ended, leaving its future uncertain, according to the June 19 edition of Carolina Journal. Democrats have raised concerns about several provisions in the bill, including expanding the timeframe for challenging voter eligibility, granting additional authority to the state auditor, and allowing the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session. North Carolina is the only U.S. state in which the state auditor appoints members of the State Board of Elections. That authority shifted to the auditor following the 2024 general election, after an earlier 2023 legislative effort sought to place the board under the Secretary of State. House Bill 958 would expand the state auditor's authority to review local elections, prohibit election officials from using public resources to encourage voter participation, and extend the period for challenging absentee and early voting ballots. Critics argue that these provisions could discourage voter participation and complicate the vote-counting process. They also point to a provision that would allow the names of campaign contributors to be withheld during post-election audits, a measure that supporters describe as protecting privacy and opponents characterize as reducing transparency, according to WRAL. “This ruling is about power being seized through procedural manipulation rather than earned through the democratic process,” according to Katelin Kaiser, Policy Director for Democracy North Carolina. The bill became public when WRAL and news outlets obtained copies of proposed changes. As of Monday morning, June 15, with the bill not yet public, lawmakers had planned a Tuesday vote. Republicans in the North Carolina legislature quickly pushed through dozens of changes, however, protests halted the process. House Bill 958 would also restrict elections officials from promoting voter turnout and extend the deadline to challenge absentee and early voting ballots. The bill was posted on the legislature’s website Monday and passed the House Election Law Committee Tuesday morning. Lawmakers opened a portal on the legislature’s website for public comment on the bill Monday morning, then closed and reopened it Tuesday after Democrats raised concerns about the process. It’s unclear when legislators will return to the bill. Three Republican senators have filed a separate bill duplicating the House bill only on the provision giving the State Auditor more power. The 36-page bill overhauls multiple parts of North Carolina election law. Among notable changes are provisions extending the deadline for voters to challenge certain ballots. Another change requires using federal databases to identify and remove ineligible or deceased voters. Provisions raised concerns from some Democrats on the committee, arguing that the bill could erroneously remove eligible voters from voter rolls. “If there’s an issue with registration or ineligibility, it seems like that should be raised when they register at the State Board of Elections or at their county boards of elections, rather than telling them after they voted, their all of a sudden their vote gets kicked out,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Democrat from Guilford County. State Rep. Hugh Blackwell, R-Burke County, said, “Certainly we’re not trying to put up obstacles so much as to do what we can – to improve where we can – integrity of the voting process.” The bill would require Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek to conduct post-election audits at the county level. Supporters say the measure is intended to strengthen public confidence in the electoral process. As one supporter stated, "Post-election audits focused on election processes and procedures will help improve confidence in our voting system." Under current law, the State Auditor has the authority—but is not required—to conduct election audits. According to a spokesperson for the State Board of Elections, the auditor does not currently participate in election audits. Democrats, including state Rep. Phil Rubin of Wake County, argued that because the State Auditor is an elected partisan official, the expanded authority could allow audits to be targeted toward counties where a particular political party—or the auditor himself—performed poorly. They contend that such discretion could raise concerns about the appearance of political bias in the audit process. "I know the statute says it won't affect the outcome of an election," Rubin said. "But having members of a group running for office enter a county after an election and take possession of ballot boxes is going to send a message." Current law already prohibits members of state and county boards of elections from publicly endorsing candidates or soliciting campaign contributions. House Bill 958 would add another restriction by barring election board members from publicly encouraging citizens to vote. Democrats also criticized Republican leaders for moving the legislation rapidly through the House committee process, arguing that the accelerated timeline limited public review and debate. Rep. Phil Rubin summarized the issue well when he said, "This is the kind of bill that deserves a deliberate and transparent legislative process. A draft should be available at least three weeks in advance, followed by two weeks for lawmakers to debate and refine the proposal. The public should then have at least a week to review the final version before a committee hearing lasting two to three hours, with no less than an hour reserved for public comment." Regardless of where one stands on election policy, North Carolinians deserve an open, transparent, and thoughtful legislative process when changes to election laws are under consideration. Measures that affect the administration of elections should be subject to robust public review, meaningful debate, and opportunities for citizen input. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

The Supreme Court’s recent voting rights decision is part of a broader trend of rulings that have gradually narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What changed here is not simply a technical legal standard, but the practical way race may be considered in drawing political districts and how discrimination must be proven in court. Those changes affect representation, public policy, and the enforceability of civil rights protections. The most immediate consequence is in political representation. For decades, courts interpreting the Voting Rights Act permitted—and sometimes required—the creation of majority-Black or majority-Hispanic districts when voting patterns showed minority voters would otherwise be consistently outvoted. The Court’s newer direction makes such race-conscious districting more legally vulnerable. States now face a narrow path: ignoring race risks diluting minority voting power, while considering race too directly risks constitutional challenge. Many legislatures are therefore likely to avoid explicit race-based mapmaking altogether. That shift matters because voting in the United States remains highly polarized along racial lines. When district boundaries are drawn without accounting for that reality, Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to be dispersed across districts where they cannot significantly influence election outcomes. The result is often not outright exclusion, but a quieter form of vote dilution: fewer districts where minority communities can elect candidates of their choice and fewer representatives directly accountable to those communities. Representation also shapes policy outcomes far beyond elections. Education provides a clear example. State legislatures and local governments control school funding formulas, district boundaries, and educational priorities. When minority representation weakens, political pressure to address disparities in funding, teacher allocation, or language-access programs may weaken as well. Over time, existing inequities can deepen—not through explicit discrimination, but through reduced political urgency. Economic consequences follow a similar pattern. Public investment in infrastructure, workforce development, and small-business support is heavily influenced by political representation. Communities able to elect responsive representatives generally receive more sustained attention to local needs. When voting strength is diluted, those communities may compete from a weaker position for state and federal resources. The mechanism is indirect but significant: representation influences priorities, and priorities shape where public investment flows. The civil rights implications are especially immediate. The Court’s decision raises the evidentiary burden for proving violations under federal law. Demonstrating that a policy produces racially unequal outcomes is increasingly insufficient; plaintiffs are more often required to prove intentional discrimination. That standard is considerably harder to meet, particularly because modern laws are usually written in race-neutral language. As a result, litigation becomes a less effective tool for challenging inequities, placing greater reliance on political processes that are themselves being reshaped. In North Carolina, these national developments are intensified by the state’s recent legal and political trajectory. The state has long been a battleground over redistricting and voting laws, and its courts have shifted in how aggressively they review those issues. With a judiciary now more deferential to legislative authority and a federal framework that is less interventionist, lawmakers have broader discretion than they did only a few years ago. That discretion is visible in debates over congressional maps and voter identification requirements. Although such policies are typically framed in neutral terms such as election integrity or administrative efficiency, their effects may fall unevenly across communities. Black and Hispanic voters are statistically more likely to encounter barriers such as limited access to qualifying identification or inflexible work schedules that complicate voting. Under current legal standards, proving those effects constitute unlawful discrimination is more difficult than it once was. The interaction between reduced federal oversight and expanded state autonomy makes North Carolina particularly significant. Weakening federal protections does not automatically create restrictive policies, but it creates greater opportunity for them. Whether states use that flexibility to expand or limit access depends on political leadership, public pressure, and electoral incentives. In a closely divided state, even modest changes to district lines or voting procedures can substantially affect political power. More broadly, these developments reflect a redefinition of voting-rights enforcement. The legal system is moving away from ensuring representative outcomes and toward a narrower focus on preventing explicit, provable discrimination. That distinction shifts the burden significantly. Rather than courts actively shaping representative systems, responsibility increasingly falls on voters, advocacy groups, and political coalitions to secure representation through the political process itself. For Black and Hispanic communities nationally and in North Carolina, formal access to the ballot remains intact, but the structural protections that translate votes into political influence are becoming less robust. The long-term effects are likely to emerge gradually—in legislative representation, resource allocation, and the responsiveness of institutions to increasingly diverse constituencies. Virgil L. Smith formerly served as president and publisher of the Asheville Citizen-Times and Vice President for Human Resources for the Gannett Company. He is the principal for the Smith Edwards Group and the author of "The Keys to Effective Leadership.” He is the founder and a writer for Carolina Commentary

Why? Job woes are reality, especially for Black and young workers and even workers with college degrees. In North Carolina, 7,200 manufacturing jobs disappeared in 2025. Between last April and this past March, Business Insidermagazine reports, the U.S. added only 152,000 jobs, averaging fewer than 4,000 a month, compared to 77,000 a month average over the same months in 2025. Most N.C. industry sectors and metro areas report this downward trend, the fifth consecutive year of a labor market slowdown. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics annually revises labor market indicators; data revisions in recent years often show job growth has been slower than initially estimated. Why? Possible explanations include the immigration crackdown, which reduces the number of people coming to the United States to work, artificial intelligence replacing workers, and, idiosyncratic tariff policies. Shortfalls persist especially in the Asheville area as complete recovery from Hurricane Helene remains elusive. OK, there is that hurricane effect—a plausible reason. Another reason, according to some economists, is the influence of erratic behavior from the administration. Uncertainty is never good for the economy. Only four months ago, in his State of the Union address the president said the economy “is roaring like never before.” The latest data on jobs, pump prices and the stock market suggests otherwise, according to Fortune magazine. And there are ongoing, multiple-state lawsuits over Trump’s tariffs. Meanwhile, midterm elections loom. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran certainly influence economic outlook, if only through uncertainty. So. How is Trump managing the economy? One economist who advises governments worldwide, calls his policies “an idiosyncratic hodgepodge.” Trump claims tariffs have reduced the “U.S. trade deficit by 24% from April 2025 through February 2026 compared to the same period a year earlier, and [it has] decreased every single month on a year-over-year basis since Liberation Day.” Politifact found that “Trump exaggerated the deficit's decline on his watch by a factor of 10.” And, Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common sense, notes, “The deficit has not been meaningfully cut, much less slashed by 25%."The cumulative 2025 trade deficit for the 15 trade partners with which the United States had its largest deficits in 2024 increased by $85.26 billion. Taxpayers for Common Sense is a Washington, D.C.-based group that tracks budget policy. The White House provided no evidence to support the statement. Though reports say the economy added 178,000 jobs in March, and unemployment is low, at 4.3 percent, hiring is sluggish. Job seekers are pessimistic about prospects. This leaves unemployed workers dependent on unemployment benefits or severance, which may or may not be forthcoming. Uncertainty reigns. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

An unprecedented assault on the media by a sitting President and a landscape changed by technology continue to erode one of the pillars of self-government and community engagement. President Donald Trump recently endorsed Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licenses over news coverage of the U.S. Israeli war in Iran that he doesn’t like. The president wrote on Truth Social, “As I used to say in The Apprentice, FIRED.” Carr, and presumably the President, know that actually revoking broadcast licenses would take years of legal wrangling and would likely be unsuccessful, but the threats cause harm nonetheless. By making unsupported accusations of network bias, Carr casts doubt on the accuracy of their reporting, especially among supporters of the administration. Such accusations fall into the same category as Trump’s “fake news” charges that have contributed to undermining American’s trust in all news platforms. According to a Gallup poll conducted in September 2025, Americans who say they have a great deal of trust in the media reached a new low of 28 percent in 2025, down from 31 percent a year earlier. Another 36 percent say they have “not very much” trust in the media, while 34 percent say they have “none at all.” Trust in the media fell from 40% to 32% during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump frequently tweeted critical or insulting comments about the media. Soon after his election in 2016, he began calling news stories he didn’t like “fake news.” His assault on the media has continued ever since. Accurate information helps us make decisions about matters that affect our lives. But even if accurate information is available, if we can be convinced to doubt that information, we are far more vulnerable to a charismatic leader like Trump whose bravado convinces us he knows best and is acting in our interest. The men who ratified our Constitution understood that a free people couldn’t govern themselves without a free press. Here’s the rub. The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee news will be fair or accurate or accountable. That’s why it’s a good idea to read or watch or listen to more than one source. That said, over the years at legacy media companies, thanks in part to national press associations like the American Society of Newspaper Editors, standards for accuracy and fairness evolved. The newsrooms of legacy media companies like ABC, CBS and NBC are committed to getting the facts right and making every attempt to balance the stories they report. There is no greater embarrassment for a reporter than to get the facts wrong or to report them out of context. And when they make mistakes, responsible news organizations run corrections. Even though revoking licenses presents near insurmountable obstacles, Carr’s threats cause harm besides undermining public trust. The FCC doesn’t actually grant licenses to networks like ABC, NBC and CBS, but it does license the stations the networks own and independent stations that air their programming. Where it does have leverage, as this CNN article points out, is when a station owner wants to transfer a license, as was the case when Nexstar and Sinclair pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show from their ABC-affiliated stations last fall. At the time, Nexstar needed FCC approval to buy rival company Tegna. The FCC has since approved the $6.2 billion acquisition which closed on March 19. Nexstar and its partners now own 265 television stations that reach about 80% of U.S. households. In the past, FCC rules prohibited any company from reaching more than 39% of U.S. households. These stations contract with the major networks for programming, but some have competing local news operations that will likely be consolidated by Nexstar. NPR reported that Anna Gomez, a Democratic member of the FCC, condemned the FCC’s approval of the merger. She said it was done behind closed doors without an actual vote. “Local journalism is under extraordinary strain," she said. "Across the country newsrooms are being consolidated, reporters laid off and editorial decisions made far from the communities broadcast stations are licensed to serve. The Nexstar-Tegna merger will accelerate exactly that trend, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands, shrinking independent editorial voices and prioritizing national business interests over local needs." The attorneys general of eight states, including North Carolina, filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., seeking to block the merger, arguing that it will lead to higher prices for consumers and result in less local journalism. DirecTV, Newsmax and several cable companies have also challenged the merger claiming it will result in higher retransmission costs that will be passed on to consumers. Several other groups have also asked the court to halt the merger until appeals can be heard. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain, the media landscape continues to shift. Many areas already feel like local news deserts thanks to newspaper mergers and slashed newsrooms, a result of advertising revenue shifting to online platforms. The FCC shift seems to be driven in part by the fact that streaming services and social media platforms have disrupted the traditional local advertising market for television broadcasters, as well. Regulators have determined that the survival of local broadcasting takes precedence over diversity of local news. How can those of us who want to keep up with what’s going on in our communities stay informed? We can take New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger’s advice. In an advertisement that ran for the first time in March, which a spokesperson told the Nieman Journalism Lab will run across most New York Times podcasts, Sulzberger urges listeners “to support any news organization that’s dedicated to original reporting. If that’s your local newspaper, terrific — local newspapers in particular need your support. If that’s another national newspaper, that’s great too.” The good news is that non-profit online news organizations are experiencing tremendous growth across the nation, offsetting the loss of news organizations whose newsrooms have been merged and/or slashed. There are now more than 400 nonprofit online newsrooms across the U.S. They’re typically funded by donations, foundations, memberships and events, not advertising. Most are part of the Institute for Nonprofit News , where you can find a non-profit online newsroom near you. In addition to local newspapers, news organizations deserving special consideration in North Carolina include non-profits such as local National Public Radio affiliates, Carolina Public Press , Asheville Watchdog , and The Assembly . For most of our history, news organizations relied on advertising revenue to keep their companies afloat. That model no longer holds as it once did. But our need for fair and accurate reporting is, if anything, greater than ever. Our support has become essential. Jo y Franklin is a journalist and writer who served as editorial page editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times for 10 years. Prior to that she served as executive editor of the Times-News in Hendersonville.

The Leandro v. State decision has long stood as a constitutional benchmark affirming that every child in North Carolina is entitled to a “sound basic education.” The recent action by the North Carolina Supreme Court declining to compel the legislature to fund the remedies tied to that obligation underscores a persistent institutional tension—one that sits at the intersection of judicial interpretation and legislative authority. Supporters of the Court’s position correctly note that the judiciary does not wield the power of the purse. Appropriations are, by design, the responsibility of the legislative branch. That argument has merit. However, it omits a critical point: had the legislature consistently met its constitutional obligation, judicial intervention would never have been necessary. The courts did not initiate this conflict—they responded to it. The data surrounding North Carolina’s education system reinforces this reality. While the state has made measurable progress in outcomes, it continues to lag significantly in investment. North Carolina currently spends approximately $12,000 per student, which is roughly $5,600 below the national average, placing it near the bottom nationally (around 50th) in per-pupil funding. ( North Carolina Association of Educators ) Among southern states, North Carolina also trails the regional average by nearly  9 percent , falling behind neighbors such as South Carolina and Alabama. ( NC Newsline ) Even more concerning, when measured by effort—how much of its economic capacity the state devotes to education—North Carolina ranks last (51st) in the nation. ( North Carolina Association of Educators ) This is not merely a budgetary issue; it is a reflection of policy priorities. At the same time, the state points to improving outcomes. North Carolina’s high school graduation rate has reached a historic high of approximately 87.7 percent, an increase from 69 percent in 2006. ( NC DPI ) However, these gains mask persistent inequities. Graduation rates for economically disadvantaged students remain significantly lower—around 83 percent compared to 91 percent for their peers—highlighting systemic disparities tied directly to resource allocation. ( MyFutureNC ) The transition from high school to higher education also reveals structural challenges. While more than half of graduates take at least one college-level course, only about 36 percent leave high school with actual college credit, and overall college completion rates in the state hover around 49–50 percent. ( NC DPI ) These figures suggest that access to postsecondary opportunity remains uneven and incomplete. This disconnect—between relatively improving outcomes and persistently low investment—creates a fragile foundation for the state’s future. Lawmakers frequently emphasize education as a cornerstone for economic development, particularly in attracting industries that offer high wages, strong benefits, and long-term career pathways. Yet those ambitions are undermined when the state ranks near the bottom nationally in funding and effort. The consequences are especially pronounced in rural and underserved urban communities. Families without access to private education or supplemental resources depend entirely on public systems that are, by comparative standards, underfunded. At the same time, North Carolina faces intensifying competition for qualified teachers and administrators. Without sustained investment in salaries, training, and classroom resources, the state risks losing talent to neighboring states that are making stronger financial commitments. In regional context, North Carolina’s standing is paradoxical. It is a top 10 state in population and economic output, yet remains in the bottom tier nationally in education funding, even as some southern peers invest more per student. ( EdNC ) This imbalance between capacity and commitment underscores the core issue at the heart of the Leandro case. The refusal to fully fund the constitutional standard is not a neutral act—it is a policy choice with long-term implications. Education deficits compound over time, affecting workforce readiness, economic mobility, and community stability. The data already shows disparities by income, geography, and opportunity; without corrective action, those gaps will widen. Ultimately, this issue returns to a fundamental principle of governance. Legislators swear an oath not only to represent their constituents, but to uphold the state constitution. That responsibility is not optional, nor is it situational. When constitutional obligations—particularly those tied to the education of children—are deferred, it is more than a political failure; it is a breach of public trust. The bottom line is clear: North Carolina cannot simultaneously aspire to economic leadership while underinvesting in the very system that produces its future workforce. The longer the state delays in meeting its constitutional duty, the more profound—and more generational—the consequences will be. The bottom line is clear: sustainable economic growth, social stability, and equitable opportunity all depend on a fully realized commitment to education. The longer the state delays in meeting its constitutional duty, the more profound—and more costly—the consequences will become. Virgil L. Smith formerly served as president and publisher of the Asheville Citizen-Times and Vice President for Human Resources for the Gannett Company. He is the principal for the Smith Edwards Group and the author of " The Keys to Effective Leadership .” He is the founder and a writer for Carolina Commentary.

Two things struck me about an interview Stephen Colbert conducted with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, which aired on YouTube because, Colbert says , CBS refused to let him interview Talarico on “The Late Show.” CBS says it gave him “guidance.”   Either way, I was struck by how far CBS has fallen from the days when its news anchor Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America. It’s appalling that the network would squander such a legacy by cowering in fear that President Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr might investigate the network as he has done in the wake of Talarico’s appearance on ABC’s “The View.”   Second, I was struck, as I have been by other interviews and stories about Talarico, that he is helping to lead mainline Christians out of a bewildered silence, as they have watched Christian nationalists define what Christianity is. That is, of course, the reason Trump’s devotees don’t want people to hear what Talarico has to say. That, and their fear that Talarico, a Democrat, may flip a Texas Senate seat now held by a Republican.   Talarico isn’t the first or only Christian appalled by the Trump administration. Some Western North Carolinians are among those taking a stand against the administration’s inhumane and often brutal immigration enforcement tactics. One thousand individual United Methodists from across the region recently signed a public statement expressing their horror at the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement actions and their solidarity with the people harmed by them. But Talarico is one of the most articulate at defining Christian values in opposition to Christian nationalism and he’s acquired a larger audience than most. Here are a couple of quotes from him from an interview conducted by Ezra Klein of the New York Times (Read or listen to the full interview here .)   …The separation of church and state — I was taught that constitutional boundary was sacred, not for the benefit of the state, although there are benefits to our democracy, but for the benefit of the church. Because when religion gets too cozy with power, we lose our prophetic voice, our ability to see beyond the current systems, the current era.   …Concern for the poor, concern for the oppressed, is everywhere (in Scripture). Economic justice is mentioned 3,000 times in our Scriptures, both the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures. This is such a core part of our tradition, and it’s nowhere to be seen in Christian nationalism or on the religious right.   As for CBS’s unwillingness to air Colbert’s interview with Talarico on “The Late Show,” it boggles the mind.  In a clear case of self-censorship, the network reacted to new guidance from the Trump administration interpreting the Equal Time Rule as requiring equal air time for political candidates on talk shows. The Equal Time Rule was enacted in the 1920s by the Federal Radio Commission (later the Federal Communications Commission) in an era when few radio and television networks were broadcasting.   Networks were licensed by the government, as they are now, to broadcast on the limited number of available frequencies.  The Equal Time Rule grew out of concern that in a democracy, citizens need access to varying viewpoints to make informed decisions about public affairs, such as elections, in order to govern themselves. The Equal Time Rule became part of the Communications Act of 1934, with the intention of ensuring fairness in federal political campaign advertising. Stations must be willing to sell an equal amount of advertising to each and every candidate. This law still applies. However, exemptions were made for unpaid political candidate appearances on news and talk shows.   The talk-show exemption seemed to be codified when, in October 2006, California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, running for reelection, appeared on NBC’s “The Tonight Show,” with Jay Leno. His Democratic opponent protested to the FCC and demanded equal air time. The FCC, then under President George W. Bush, ruled that late-night talk show interviews are subject to the same exemption as news programs.   The Fairness Doctrine, introduced in 1949, had a similar objective as the Equal Time Rule. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. In 1985, the Reagan Administration’s FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. Congress then tried to codify it into law, but Reagan vetoed the bill.   It can be argued that in a technological era with multiple news platforms and sources of news and information, there is no longer a need for a Fairness Doctrine. Be that as it may, equitably enforcing a Fairness Doctrine or the Equal Time Rule, as the Trump Administration interprets it, in the present media environment seems a challenging undertaking for Carr’s FCC. For starters, what exactly defines the difference between a talk show and a news program?   Does Carr’s FCC plan to “investigate” to ensure Democratic candidates get equal access every time a Republican candidate appears on a Fox Network talk show during the 2026 election cycle? Or on a right-wing radio talk show? How will the FCC resolve complaints from candidates of both parties who want equal time?   If enforced fairly, Carr’s new interpretation of the Equal Time Rule will give Talarico and other Democratic candidates access to audiences they might not otherwise have reached in a media environment where many Americans live in information silos. Or, if networks self-censor, as CBS did, he may have denied candidates of both parties’ platforms on which to make their cases.   Speaking of the present media environment, if Carr’s objective was to reduce Tala rico’s exposure, he failed miserably. The YouTube version of the Colbert interview has been viewed more than 8.6 million times and counting . The Nielsen ratings showed “The Late Show” with an average audience of about 2.6 million viewers in January.   Joy Franklin is a journalist and writer who served as editorial page editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times for 10 years. Prior to that she served as executive editor of the Times-News in Hendersonville.

Myths that Won’t Die: “Immigrants Take American Jobs and Bloat Welfare Rolls” President Trump wants $170 billion in immigrant “enforcement” dollars—more than combined FBI and CIA funding —to tighten or stop legal illegal immigration. The public is souring on this idea. Immigrants are confused and scared. The plan: Spend $45 billion to double immigrant-detention capacity. But siting these prisons has become problematic. Communities are balking. Lawmakers in Democratic-led states are introducing legislation to block or “discourage” these Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. Such prisons would expand the already-booming, profitable prison industry. News of these planned "warehouses" for deportees has touched a public nerve. Myriad myths surround immigrants and immigration. Contrary to widespread opinion, immigrants do not overuse the “welfare system.” A 2023 study found that per capita, immigrants used 24 percent fewer welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans. At 14.8 percent of the US population, immigrants used only 10.4 percent of these means-tested benefits. Non-citizen immigrants who are lawfully in the United States with contemporary visas, lawful permanent residents, and illegal immigrants—used 53 percent fewer “welfare” benefits than native-born Americans. Noncitizens, 7.5 percent of the population, consumed just 3.2 percent of all welfare benefits. Naturalized immigrants, 7.2 percent of the population, used 8 percent in welfare benefits, 20 percent more than native-born citizens because the population uses Social Security and i mmigrant-eligible voters skew older than their U.S.-born counterparts. They’re also more likely to have a bachelor’s degree; they live in households with slightly higher incomes and have lower levels of English proficiency. Curtailing immigration would hurt the economy. Immigrants start businesses, help drive innovation, and fill “essential workforce needs,” which often means doing jobs Americans can’t or won’t do. When whole families immigrate, it effectively strengthens the middle class, “promotes family unity and integration,” a time-honored American value. Many immigrants become citizens, swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Most immigration research demonstrates the value of immigration.  So why is the Trump Administration tightening or halting entry into the United States and even building detention warehouses  and doubling capacity. That is more than a little scary. The massive construction will enrich the nation’s corporate prison builders. Some experts think we need to encourage legal immigration, protect and expand levels, and reform policy to make it “easier, safer, faster, and more efficient for prospective immigrants to enter the United States.” Consider these findings from the Economic Policy Institute: Immigrants are disproportionately more likely than native-born residents to be working. In 2023, at 14.3 percent of the U.S. population, they were 18.6 percent of the work force. Between 2005 and 2010, immigrants had an 80 percent higher rate of starting their own firms than U.S.-born peers.  In 2013, immigrants represented 16 percent of the U.S. labor force, 18 percent of business owners; 28 percent of Main Street businesses like retail, food services, and accommodation, and neighborhood services such as nail salons, beauty shops, and gas stations. Research demonstrates the value of immigration. Can we afford to ignore contributions of immigrants? We curtail legal immigration  at our peril. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction , an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

That line from the British comedy show “That Mitchell and Webb Look’’ has over the years sparked countless internet memes. The setup is simple; in the depths of a battle on the Eastern Front in WWII, a Nazi officer takes note of the skull regalia donning his unit’s hats and begins to question if he and his troops were on the right side of right and wrong.  It’s a funny skit. Fast forward from its air date in 2006 to today’s discussion of U.S.-Greenland relations and the skit’s central premise loses some of its humor, its central question hitting far closer to home than any of us would have imagined only months ago. Are we the baddies? To reprise, Donald Trump floated the concept of the U.S. acquiring Greenland in his first term, Greenland but his second term has brought the idea to the forefront with statements that we should purchase Greenland, and if that doesn’t work we would “do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” and that military force is “always an option.” Rationales for the takeover of Greenland, a Danish territory, generally invoke claims that it’s vital to U.S. security, that Denmark is too weak to defend it, along with some pundits pointing out that a wealth of minerals will be accessible in Greenland as climate changes thaws out the ice-covered island. (Notably, the official position of the administration is that climate change is a hoax, so good luck squaring that logic). As January rolled toward February, Trump announced a 10 percent import tax on eight European nations – all allies – due to their opposition to a Greenland takeover. He said the rate would climb to 25 percent on June 1 should that date arrive without “the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” by the U.S. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, in an interview with Jake Tapper, asserted the U.S. has the right to take Greenland, saying “Greenland should be part of the United States.” Miller also questioned Denmark’s claim over Greenland, saying. “What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?” For its park, Denmark says they have no interest in ceding or selling Greenland. Greenlanders, for their part, have long been pushing for independence and seem to have no interest in becoming part of the U.S. (At the very least they’d lose their government-funded health care). The idea of a military takeover of Greenland is broadly unpopular among Americans as well. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has pushed back hard on Miller’s comments.  “What makes me cranky? Stupid.” Tillis said. “What makes me cranky is when people don’t do their homework. What makes me cranky is when we tarnish the extraordinary execution of a mission I fully support in Venezuela by turning around and making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the Kingdom of Denmark.” Tillis pointed out that Denmark’s role in NATO’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks was “disproportionately high,” as the nation of only 6 million people lost 43 soldiers in Afghanistan. As to Greenland being defenseless, who’s responsible? Um, we are, having drawn down the U.S. presence from around 10,000 military personnel to around 200. Thing is, were we to surge troops for defense to Greenland, there would likely be no objections from island inhabitants or Denmark. Both have been steadfast allies for decades. Writing in the New York Times, David French sums up the current calculus succinctly: “Bullying Denmark to seize Greenland would be the equivalent of threatening a friend to steal his car after he already let you borrow it. The friendly gesture is nice and all, but isn’t it better if the car is yours?” If the U.S. takes Greenland in an overt power grab, that’s the end of NATO as we know it, and that means fallout we can’t imagine, from the U.S. losing bases all over Europe to market meltdowns and who knows what else.  Left-leaning commentator Brent Molnar laid out a long litany of potential dire consequences of a forced U.S. seizure of Greenland in a recent commentary. Beyond roiling longstanding military alliances and financial market assumptions, he offered this bleak take: “This is the end of trust, and it does not reset. You cannot invade a democratic ally and then say ‘my bad’ four years later. The psychological break will be permanent.” We are set to celebrate the 250th of our founding this year. Our history has much to be proud of; even the parts that are dark are acknowledged with the hope that were the exception, not the rule, that we can learn from them and strive to listen to our better angels, to recognize decency and values. “Might makes right’’ is not one of those values. Those are for the baddies. Let’s steer clear of them. Jim Buch anan  is retired. He is a former Editorial Page Editor for the Asheville Citizen-Times and writes for Carolina Commentary.

As North Carolina closes out a consequential 2025, the state moves into 2026 navigating a complex convergence of political, social, economic, and institutional pressures. Beneath the surface of a growing economy and vibrant communities lies a deeper story: one of systems under strain, households navigating rising costs, and an electorate confronting trust-shaking challenges.   The year’s events reveal a state at a pivotal moment, where policy decisions made now will reverberate through civic life, workforce readiness, and the health of families statewide.   Few issues captured public attention in 2025 as sharply as voting access and election legitimacy. Nearly 100,000 voters were instructed to add driver’s‐license or Social Security information to their voter files—an administrative hurdle that carries the real risk of ballots being partially counted or moved to provisional status. The controversy has deepened as litigation continues around barriers affecting younger voters, people with name changes, and voters with incomplete registration records.   Meanwhile, political tension heightened with events such as the contested state Supreme Court race—where tens of thousands of ballots were challenged months after they were cast—and scrutiny within the State Board of Elections itself, including questions of partisanship and leadership instability.   For many residents, these developments have magnified the perception of voter suppression and eroded confidence in democratic processes. The fear is not only disenfranchisement but also the chilling effect on civic participation. The state enters 2026 with a politically polarized electorate and a governance infrastructure facing significant public skepticism.   Parallel to the political landscape, social pressures intensified across the state. Youth mental-health challenges—especially in rural regions—have reached alarming levels, stressing schools, families, and community agencies. Rising economic insecurity and social isolation have contributed to fragmentation within communities.   Local governments continued to adapt to demographic and immigration shifts, with some cities adopting new policies to protect workers and residents navigating federal enforcement. These dynamics underscore a growing need for expanded mental-health access, family support systems, and local resilience strategies.   North Carolina’s business climate in 2025 reflected both resilience and new vulnerabilities. Small businesses grappled with rising healthcare costs, leading to the formation of programs such as Carolina HealthWorks to pool insurance risk and lower premiums. While helpful, such measures cannot fully offset the broader inflationary environment—higher wages, housing costs, and operational expenses that continue to reshape employer decisions. Industries reliant on specialized talent, including technology, advanced manufacturing and healthcare face intensified competition, especially as education and workforce challenges emerge.   Health-insurance premiums are projected to spike significantly in 2026—up to 36 percent on the individual market—driven by the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies and insurer rate increases. Families and small employers already stretched thin may face tough decisions: absorb higher costs, shift to less comprehensive plans, or drop coverage altogether. In rural communities, existing healthcare-access gaps could widen further, compounding long-standing inequities.   Education remains one of the most worrisome long-term trends. North Carolina continues to rank near the bottom nationally in per-pupil funding and lags in competitive teacher pay. Educator attrition is rising, early childhood access remains limited, and shortages in high-need subjects threaten academic quality. These challenges reach far beyond the classroom: they directly affect the future labor force, economic mobility, and the state’s ability to attract or retain employers.   While North Carolina’s overall cost of living remains slightly below the national average, the gap between living expenses and income is widening. A typical family of four now requires nearly $100,000 annually to meet basic needs—far above the state’s median household income. Housing prices continue to rise, healthcare costs are elevated, and everyday goods and services are increasingly expensive. For many families, affordability is becoming a defining constraint on opportunity, location, and stability.   The picture that emerges from 2025 is one of a state marked by opportunity but challenged by fragility. Political tensions intersect with education and economic disparities; healthcare costs collide with business sustainability; social pressures spill into schools, workplaces, and local governments. North Carolina’s progress in 2026 will depend on whether leaders, institutions, and communities can address these interconnected issues with transparency, investment, and a commitment to equitable participation.   What happens next will determine not only policy outcomes, but the kind of state North Carolina chooses to become. Special Recognition: In Memoriam We respectfully recognize and honor the lives and enduring legacies of two distinguished public servants who profoundly shaped North Carolina: former Governor Jim Hunt and former State Representative Wilma Sherrill. Governor James B. “Jim” Hunt Jr. , the 69th and 71st Governor of North Carolina and the longest-serving governor in the state’s history, passed away on December 18, 2025, at the age of 88. Governor Hunt’s decades of service were defined by visionary leadership, a deep commitment to public education, and an unwavering dedication to improving the lives of North Carolinians. His impact on the state will be felt for generations. We honor North Carolina State Representative Wilma Sherrill , a respected and long-serving legislator known for her effectiveness and tireless advocacy on behalf of Asheville and Western North Carolina. Representative Sherrill earned a reputation as a pragmatic leader who consistently delivered results for her constituents. She passed away on December 18, 2025, at the age of 86. The coinciding passing of these two remarkable leaders is a poignant reminder of the enduring value of public service. We extend our deepest condolences to their families, colleagues, and all those whose lives were touched by their leadership and dedication.   Virgil L. Smith formerly served as president and publisher of the Asheville Citizen-Times and Vice President for Human Resources for the Gannett Company. He is the principal for the Smith Edwards Group and the author of " The Keys to Effective Leadership .” He is the founder and a writer for Carolina Commentary.

Presidents have called in National Guard troops for domestic missions at least ten times since World War II, starting in 1794, when Western Pennsylvanians’ protests on federal liquor taxes prompted Secretary of War Henry Knox to ask governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for troops. The Trump administration’s dispatch of troops to the Democratic cities of Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis have, for now, been stopped by lawsuits over sending Guard soldiers there, as well as to Chicago, Portland, California, and Illinois. Multiple federal district and appellate courts halted, or ruled against, the plans. Now , the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to respond to an emergency appeal asking for permission to deploy troops in Chicago. Trump may be using the “Insurrection Act” as a move to avoid these legal cases  slowing him down , suggests an article in the Christian Science Monitor .  The Western Pennsylvanians’ protests sent 12,950 soldiers to “suppress the insurrection and enforce the laws of the Union.” By the time the men reached Pittsburgh, the rebellion had subsided. Pres. Woodrow Wilson also called for domestic troops to quell Pancho Villa’s 1916 border raids. Circumstances prompting these “federalizations” have varied dramatically. In the 1930s, several states used National Guards to stop the New Deal’s National Industrial Recovery Act. In the 1950s and 1960s troops were called to Little Rock, Ark., initially to stop Black student enrollments; later, to stop riots when Black students did enroll. In 1962, James Meredith was refused enrollment in the University of Mississippi at Oxford. Then-Pres. Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard, “should any be needed to preserve law and order while United States marshals carried out the orders of the court.” ICE protests have prompted Trump to call on the Guard, though as of June 2025 the Insurrection Act had not been passed. Enacted in 1807, the authorization, though vague, allows the president deploy, i.e., “federalize,” state National Guard units in states. Requirements include: response to a request by a state’s governing body; address an ‘insurrection’ in any state preventing federal law enforcement; address actions that deprive constitutional rights. Using the Insurrection authorization gets around the Posse Comitatus Act, a Civil War law that restricts the military from being used as law enforcement; the Insurrection Act allows the president to use the military for law enforcement. The military can be called up for, say, a disaster, but they are not law enforcement. They cannot arrest.  Callups can be a response to a request by a state’s governing body to address an insurrection preventing enforcement of a federal law, or action that “results in the deprivation of constitutional rights.” However, these definitions of “civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion” are vague.  President Trump has threatened to invoke the act twice; first, during the 2020 George Floyd protests; in  2025,  ICE protests in Los Angeles. Both times he was convinced not to do so. “That is a use of the military that has never been part of the way we think about ourselves,” according to Harvard Kennedy School’s Juliette Kayyem. “ What we saw with the National Guard in D.C. illustrated this. An insurrection means state government can’t work; that’s the way it is defined in the Insurrection Act. And yet federal troops were deployed, and what did they do? They picked up trash. It is so expensive to deploy the military in this way. This expansive definition of an insurrection could extend to the mid-term elections, where this administration can deploy the military to cities simply to intimidate voting.”  There’s a reason why the U.S. Constitution’s structure divides civilian authorities and military authorities.  “We have a president who wants to use the military as an extension of law enforcement. That is a significant change. And we should be wary about this sort of casualness in which he disrupts that constitutional order.” On Saturday, Nov. 15, and again on Sunday, Nov. 16, federal border patrol agents in Charlotte arrested people in public spaces “while protesters marched, some businesses closed, and activists worked to document what was happening,” according to the Charlotte Observer . News accounts report that supermarkets and grocery stores carrying international foodstuffs have been a “frequent target of Border Patrol agents this weekend.” The Observer further reported , “Sunday, two men were arrested in the parking lot of Dany’s Supermarket off The Plaza after they tried using an ATM there, bystanders told the Observer. An Observer reporter saw agents arrest one of the men and put him in the back of a black Ford Expedition.” An editorial writer observed, “ With every smashed window, every sneer at due process, every federal agent’s smirk at those who are horrified by it all, Donald Trump continues to lose.”   Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction , an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

On Thursday, Republican-led North Carolina lawmakers unveiled a new congressional district map that, if approved, would likely give the GOP 11 of the state’s 14 districts.   In a state with more Democrats than Republicans and more unaffiliated voters than either party, Republicans currently hold 10 of 14 Congressional seats thanks to a map that surgically carves up voters to give the advantage to the GOP. A fairer map, used in 2022, resulted in an even 7-7 split between the parties.   The new map could flip the 1st Congressional District in Republicans’ favor, ousting U.S. Rep. Don Davis , a moderate Democrat and one of only two Black members of Congress from North Carolina.   A number of ironies attends state Republicans’ announcement that they are caving to pressure from President Donald Trump to redraw districts to give their party an unfair advantage in the 2026 mid-term elections.   First, the action takes place just weeks after a poll of North Carolina voters found that 84 percent, including 87 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of Republicans, oppose gerrymandering for partisan reasons. These voters, surveyed by Opinion Diagnostics, a Republican-leaning polling firm, said redrawing voting maps for partisan advantage is “never acceptable” and districts should be drawn neutrally.   Second, North Carolina House Speaker Destin Hall had the audacity to blame California Gov. Gavin Newsom for the redistricting war instigated by President Trump and inaugurated when Texas gerrymandered its Congressional map to add five or six new GOP seats. California responded by creating a new map that would likely add five new Democratic seats if voters approve it in November.   “Our state won’t stand by while Democrats like Gavin Newsom redraw districts to aid in their efforts to obtain a majority in the U.S. House,” Hall said.   Say what? That is undoubtedly one of the most blatantly fanciful examples of self-serving reasoning by any North Carolina politician in recent history.   A third irony came when Senate leader Phil Berger said “President Trump delivered countless victories during his first term in office, and nine months into his second term he continues to achieve unprecedented wins. We are doing everything we can to protect President Trump’s agenda, which means safeguarding Republican control of Congress.”   If Trump is delivering such “wins,” why is there a need to “safeguard” Republican control of Congress. Why the need to rig the system even more? Won’t voters reward him if that’s the case?   North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton stated it well when she said, “Let me be clear: maps should not give you power; voters should.”   In yet another irony, the state is already so heavily gerrymandered that the only district Republicans could target was the 1st, represented by Davis. As a result, the new map was produced in the same week the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases out of Louisiana that may or may not overturn a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that outlaws racial gerrymandering.   The nation's Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is outside its jurisdiction, meaning it’s up to individual states to determine whether to outlaw the practice. North Carolina’s Supreme Court, also dominated by conservative justices, has declined to do so, meaning the only bulwark against gerrymandering is the Voting Rights Act.   In June, a three-judge panel met in Winston-Salem to hear lawsuits alleging that GOP legislative leaders violated the federal law and the U.S. Constitution when they enacted the current electoral maps just two years ago in October 2023 . No ruling has yet been handed down in that case, but GOP lawmakers appear to be doubling down, unconcerned about the outcome.   The 1st district is located in northeastern North Carolina. It would be redrawn to include several Republican-leaning counties along the coast, including Hyde, Dare and Pamlico. Other counties including Greene , where Davis lives , would be moved into the 3rd Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Rep. Greg Murphy, meaning Davis would be in a different district and facing an incumbent should he run for re-election.   Black voters make up almost a quarter of North Carolina voters. If maps were drawn fairly, they should have an opportunity to elect at least three members of Congress. But GOP lawmakers seem determined to dilute their votes, claiming partisan, not racial, gerrymandering.   The saddest irony of all is that states led by Democrats, like California, that have instituted independent commissions or made other efforts to prevent partisan gerrymandering are being forced to undermine those efforts in an attempt to counter the shameful and unscrupulous tactics championed by President Trump and instituted by his sycophantic followers in GOP-led states.   Republicans may cling to power, but they are reversing decades-long progress toward a fairer and more equitable nation and destroying the faith in representative government that has made the United States great and powerful.   It is that faith, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, and faith in the rule of law that give Americans the courage to take risks. It has, for decades, sustained American’s entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to work within the system to right injustices. Once lost, it will be hard to regain.   Joy Franklin is a journalist and writer who served as editorial page editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times for 10 years. Prior to that she served as executive editor of the Times-News in Hendersonville.               .

Oct. 1 dawned with news of another government shutdown as Congress failed to pass a funding bill.    At the heart of this shutdown is a fight over health care subsidies and budget cuts. Democrats want to extend a temporary program that lowered healthcare costs for 20 million Americans, and to unwind the Medicaid cuts passed in the “Big Beautiful Bill.’’   The “Big Beautiful Bill” passed under rescission, meaning it only needed 50 votes in the Senate. The current legislation needed 60 votes, and fell short.   The Democratic argument is based on affordability, a fairly straightforward case in these fraught economic times. The GOP rebuttals were a bit scattershot, from saying the issues could be addressed later to claiming Democrats wanted to pay for health care for undocumented immigrants. Those in the U.S. unlawfully can’t sign up for Medicaid or get subsidized coverage through the Affordable Care Act. And if you think an undocumented immigrant would identify themselves to the government in today’s political climate, we’ve got a secret prison in El Salvador we’d like to sell you.   In the background, Democratic voters are howling for members of their party to stand up against what they view as overreaches of the Trump administration, including spending issues. After all, past budget agreements have been neutered by aggressive new tactics on rescissions, such as yanking back approved spending on USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Constitution clearly gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the White House. However, the U.S. House has ceded that authority again and again. It doesn’t help that a number of Supreme Court justices were apparently out sick the day that was covered in law class.   Then, there’s the fact the White House was putting out AI videos featuring Democratic negotiators as Frito Bandito caricatures indicating, to put it politely as possible, a lack of seriousness on any negotiations.   So, the shutdown is here, and no one’s sure when or how it will end. What we do know for sure is that it will deliver real pain.   Democrats are right to fight for the restoration of the health care benefits axed in the “Big Beautiful Bill.” According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as a result of that bill health care premiums will double for Marketplace enrollees currently receiving assistance via current tax credits; 3.8 million Americans will eventually become uninsured; and middle-class families will get a one-two punch, losing currently available subsidies and seeing premiums rise.   The News & Observer reports the elimination of the aforementioned subsidies, passed during the COVID pandemic, could put coverage in peril for nearly half a million North Carolinians. The “Big Beautiful Bill’’ also proposes SNAP cuts that put food assistance at risk; last year, 1.42 million North Carolinians were on SNAP, a number considerably swollen due to the wrath of Helene in the western part of the state.   The list goes on and on. The 13 National Park Service areas in the state will undoubtedly be impacted, farmers already in crisis can expect less from the USDA, etc. etc. There are, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, known knowns and a ton of unknown unknowns.   This we do know: If you are going to raise obscene amounts of money and spend enormous amounts of time to gain elective office, you might consider doing your job and working through disagreements to help the American people instead of closing up shop and heading to your respective corner to take to the airwaves and TV studios to play the blame game. In a sense Congress has no skin in this game – they aren’t at risk of losing their own health care coverage. For decades we’ve heard that America has the best health care system in the world. But for anyone who has had to wade into the Rube Goldberg-esque system of getting that health care delivered, it’s painfully obvious we can do better, like pretty much every other advanced democracy. Worldwide, for example, medical bankruptcies are relatively rare.    In the U.S., they account for 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies.   Until we elect leaders willing to address why we’re such an aberration, we’ll keep finding ourselves in the position we’re in today.   Ball’s in your court, voters.