Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Campaign season is just getting warmed up, but looking back on the primaries we’ve already seen plenty of the usual fare: candidates shaking hands, hanging out at diners, and scaring voters about foreigners who are taking your jobs.

Sometimes the threat comes from China, Japan, or outsourcing to India. Today, it’s NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement—you know, all those Mexicans taking our jobs.

Senator Barack Obama joins the likes of CNN’s Lou Dobbs in decrying NAFTA. So many free trade foes fret about cheap foreign labor, yet they rarely holler about competitors who will work for far less than any foreigner. Politicians don’t pay much attention to it, but—from Terminator to Ice Pirates—Hollywood films have been warning us about humanity’s inevitable war against the machines.

“Now, think about it,” says Reason.tv host Drew Carey. “How are we supposed to compete against something that doesn’t get paid, doesn’t get health insurance, and never goes on breaks?”

Today, we don’t need human workers to book our travel, do our banking, or file our taxes. From factory workers to symphony conductors, countless workers are locked in battle with soulless job stealers known as computers, websites, and robots.

“No job is safe from the robot threat!” warns Carey. Of course, the warning is more than a little tongue-in-cheek. There’s no need to take a sledgehammer to a robot, because, although technology shakes up the labor market, it ends up giving us higher living standards as well as more and better job opportunities.

Like technology, trade gives us more good stuff than bad—yet Americans are likely to cheer technology and fear trade. No doubt TV talkers and White House wannabes will keep stoking our fears of foreigners until voters and viewers stop buying it—or until robots snag their jobs, too.

I don’t like regulated trade but if the alternative is one sided regulation the argument can be made for government treaties but they should not increase any restrictions or provide special treatment. That, however, is incredibly unlikely not to be included and therefore I think better to be safe then sorry and allow the grey/black market work around the regulations.

Defining Success Down, Massachusetts Style

Health Affairs has just published a new study of the Massachusetts health care plan by Urban Institute scholar Sharon Long. Media coverage has generally been positive, hailing the Massachusetts experiment as a success. But a closer look leads to a far less sanguine conclusion. Among other things, the study shows that:

• Slightly less than half of Massachusetts’ uninsured population actually complied with the mandate. True, the number of people without health insurance was reduced from 13% of the state’s population to 7%, but when the bill was passed, advocates promised that “all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance.” Perhaps it depends on your definition of “all.”
• Most of those who are signing up are low-income individuals, whose coverage is fully or partially subsidized, proving once again that if you give something away for free people will take it. It certainly appears that it is the expensive and generous Massachusetts subsidies (up to 300% of the poverty level), not the unprecedented individual mandate that is responsible for much of the increased coverage.
• Adverse selection remains a big problem, with the young and healthy failing to comply with the mandate. The state refused to change its community rating laws which drive up the cost of insurance for young, healthy individuals. Not surprisingly, they don’t find this a good deal.
• The program is far exceeding its projected costs, with at least a 33% budget overrun in its first year.
• The program has increased demand for health care services without increasing the supply of providers. As a result, patients are having trouble finding providers and waiting lists (Canada here we come) are beginning to develop.

If this is success, I would hate to see failure.

I agree. I wonder if Romney would be bragging about this if he was still in the lime light?

Montana:

• McCain: 76%
• Paul: 22%
• No Preference: 2%

South Dakota:

• McCain: 70%
• Paul: 17%
• Huckabee: 7%
• Romney: 3%
• Uncommitted: 3%

http://www.cnn.com/…

Former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney plans to announce Thursday that he is backing Sen. John McCain in his bid for the Oval Office, two sources familiar with the decision said.

A source familiar with the decision said Romney wants to endorse McCain “in the interest of healing.”

The source said Romney also wants to help McCain move faster to “secure the nomination and unite the party for the general election against the Democrats for November.”

Romney will “release” his delegates to McCain, meaning he will encourage them to get behind McCain’s candidacy. the source said.

As far as I understand things Romney can’t “release” his delegates to McCain. He drops out and they go free. They can vote for whoever they choose come September. I wonder whether the delegates belief in Romney’s platform (McCain is a liberal) is stronger than their belief in the man. According to some at CPAC several Romney supporters claimed they would back Paul instead. They even gave up Romney’s table to the Paul people. Given that even after his suspension Romney received a lot of votes I doubt very much his delegates would just start supporting Paul at the convention. Then again they won’t have that option. Regardless the media will start saying McCain has 1,000+ delegates now and that’s simply not true.

Road trip to DC?

http://www.cnn.com/…

Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday, saying if he continued it would “forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.”

“In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose,” the former Massachusetts governor said.

“If this were only about me, I’d go on. But it’s never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.”

Romney made the announcement Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

With Romney out, Sen. John McCain is locked in as the front-runner in the GOP race.

Romney had won 286 delegates in through the Super Tuesday contests, compared with McCain’s 697.

The crowd booed when Romney mentioned McCain, saying, “I disagree with Sen. McCain on a number of issues.”

Interesting. I was really hoping he’d go all the way. This really changes things. Huckabee will either drop out soon and take the VP slot or will try to pick up Romney’s wins. Even though Romney’s main attack on McCain was that he wasn’t conservative enough I very much doubt that the only real conservative in the race will pick up Mitt’s delegates. Some are suggesting that Paul stay in the Republican race AND announce a third party run to both scare the Republicans and appease his supporters. At this point it may not be a bad idea but I’m not sure he can. I’m not familiar enough with the Republican and Libertarian party’s rules to say. An issue would arise with his congressional reelection campaign I would imagine.