The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Secrecy Shrouds Super PAC Funds in Latest Filing,” gives some idea of the way things used to be during the Watergate era, when the Republican National Committee and President Richard Nixon would freely use “slush funds” with no legal penalty.

If anything, things seem even worse this year. As we learn from this morning’s article, it goes beyond just the Super PACs and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, when it opened the door to unlimited contributions to Super PACs.

Now it appears that Super PACs are able to even further disguise their donors by using affiliated non-profit organizations. In fact, one of the donors to Romney’s Super PAC gave $250,000 from a company with a P.O. Box for an address and no known employees.

President Obama truly was prescient when he castigated the Supreme Court at last year’s State of the Union address. I can’t remember the last time our campaigns have been so dirty with negative ads paid for by millionaires and billionaires. The implications for our democracy truly are scary.

How this ruling can be reversed remains to be seen. But it and our democracy can not co-exist for much longer. After this year’s general election campaign, which will be even worse, there will be an undeniable demand for change.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Buoyant Romney Talks of Victory on Eve of Voting,” describes a candidate who sees the nomination within his grasp, but it doesn’t bode well for his campaign and shows a lack of political instincts.

Mr. Romney’s victory lap around Florida reminds me of a celebration by another Republican, George W. Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” banner. It may turn off voters and lead to a closer result than he anticipates, giving a breath of life to an opponent who just won’t go away.

Mr. Romney’s attempt to rub it in after “carpet bombing” a fellow member of his Party gives Mr. Gingrich all the excuse he needs to take the fight all the way to the Convention. And with the new Republican format of proportional allocation of delegates instead of winner-take-all primaries, the Speaker can create a sizable disruption when he gets there.

At his age, Mr. Gingrich has nothing to lose. There will be no campaign four years from now, and he has a reputation for being overly sensitive at the best of times — remember when he shut down the government in a fit of pique after being seated at the back of Air Force One?

Anything less than a double-digit victory for Romney now will be viewed as weakness. That’s what happens when you show too much relish about winning and thereby change the expectations.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney is Winner in New Hampshire, Blunting Attacks,” elaborates on his unambiguous win in New Hampshire, becoming the first person to string that victory with Iowa in a one-two punch. If he wins in the next primary in South Carolina as well, he will start to project an aura of invincibility.

Romney’s double digit win can be partly explained by his governorship in nearby Massachusetts, giving him a favorite son status. Yet Jon Huntsman practically moved into the state and still finished a distant third. More interesting is Ron Paul’s candidacy for its unconventional libertarian reviews, uniting pacifists and drug users with conservative economic views. However, no one thinks he could ever get the nomination.

South Carolina has the next primary on January 21, followed by Florida on January 31, and many think the nomination will be decided by then. It looks to be Mitt Romney as an odds on favorite unless some conservative politician can put his ego aside to support a consensus candidate. Asking a national politician to do so, however, is a tall order since you have to have a pretty healthy ego to run for President in the first place.

Romney made several errors in the lead-up to the primary, statements showing a degree of economic insensitivity, but they don’t appear to have harmed him.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Threatens to Choke Route of Oil Shipments,” discusses the rising tension between the United States and Iran as additional sanctions are considered in light of Iran’s continuing attempts to create a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s response, a threat to cut off all oil moving through the strait of Hormuz (through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows), is strengthened by the current naval exercises the country is holding in the region. The United States immediately countered that it had a plan to keep the strait open, if necessary.

The sanction that seems to have Iran most concerned involves a provision to stop dealing with nations who use Iran’s central bank, an institution through which must of the money flows from Iran’s export of oil.

This threat could constitute one of President Obama’s rare crises, if it is carried out. Most of his other challenges this term have involved the economy or distant matters concerning the Arab Spring.

If Iran blocks the strait of Hormuz, it would create a crisis on a par with the Cuban missile crisis faced by Kennedy. Of course, no one wants this to occur if there is any way to prevent it in accordance with our national security needs.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Euro Fears Spread to Italy as the Debt Crisis Deepens,” represents a realization of the worst scenario for Euro zone countries and can be described in one word, “contagion.”

In this scenario, the problems in Greece start to have ramifications in other countries, potentially Spain and Portugal, and the ultimate nightmare, Italy. Contagion to Italy is a nightmare because it is the Euro zone’s third largest economy and is too large to either fail or bail out. Failure would lead to a worldwide financial crisis and the possible complete collapse of the Euro. Bailout is just impossible in terms of raising the necessary capital.

The Europeans did create a special bailout fund in the European Financial Stability Facility, but they have been unable to raise even the initial goal of $1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, as Euro zone members huddle to react to this recent run on Italy, the non-Euro zone countries in the European Union warn about taking any steps to change the treaty to their detriment.

What you have, then, is a two-speed Europe, one for the countries using the Euro and one for those who are not. The President of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, called for a rectification of this division by having all countries in the European Union adopt the Euro, but many regard this possibility as utopian.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work,” should provide the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of confirming that nation’s dedicated effort to build a nuclear weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is typically cautious in making these types of assessments — it pointed out the inconclusive nature of the evidence when the United States was making its famed faulty case against Iraq — so that makes their opinion even more damning. With over a thousand pages of material, including evidence from ten separate countries and independent observers, the report provides a “menu” of the steps needed to make a nuclear weapon and details Iran’s efforts on each one.

The question then becomes what to do about it? Sanctions have proved largely ineffective and even the “Stuxnet” computer worm created by the U.S. and Israel only slowed the project down for a few years.

Israel, as the likely recipient of any nuclear strike, has to be getting a bit antsy. They are not reluctant to use force at the best of times, and the existence of their entire population is at stake here. While things may be theoretical for the U.S., in Israel, they are very real. One wonders what day soon, picking up the newspaper, we will read about a new convulsion in the Middle East.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Obama Challenges Congress to ‘Pass This Jobs Bill,’” showcased a President who was determined to reason with his opponents and provide a moderate proposal to help the economy. The speech, before a joint session of Congress, seemed to illustrate the very partisanship the President was railing against, with Democrats and Republicans applauding separately depending on the issue being discussed.

The President’s proposal, called the American Jobs Act, is a $447 billion program of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, no surprise there. But the speech was delivered in a forceful tone and could represent an inflection point for the Obama presidency. It was to be followed by the President touring around the nation, promoting his new legislation.

The centerpiece of the proposal is a renewed and expanded payroll tax cut, this time for both employees and employers, and this section has the best chance for passage. Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, was surprisingly conciliatory after the address, noting that there were some areas where the two parties could work together. How that works in practice remains to be seen as several House committees would have jurisdiction over separate sections of the bill, and any one could help to tear it to shreds.

With 14 months to go before the next election, the hopes for major progress remain slim.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “New Data Shows Sharp Slowdown in Growth Rate,” provides an extra dollop of bad news about the economy. The most widely accepted measurement of the economy’s growth, gross domestic product (GDP), increased less than one percent for the first half of 2011 according to the Commerce Department. This was a much weaker statistic than most economists expected, and it also came with revisions extending all the way back to 2003, showing that the recession was deeper than realized and the recovery weaker.

According to the article, a sharp economic downturn is often followed by a sharp recovery, but in the present case, this did not hold true. In addition, all the turmoil over the debt ceiling is just making matters worse. If the U.S. should default on its debt, especially in light of these new statistics, a new recession may be inevitable.

Thanks to the uncertainty, frankly caused by intransigeance among Tea Party members in the House, businesses are sitting on their profits instead of hiring new workers. And this, in turn, results in the stubborn unemployment rate and a reduction in overall consumer spending. And consumer spending is the engine that drives the economy.

One hopes these new statistics will make Washington come to its senses.

This blog will continue on Saturday, July 30th. Thank you for subscribing.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Behind Battle Over Debt, a War Over Government,” provides a succinct analysis of the real difference between Democrats and Republicans, the one behind the current negotiations, that makes an agreement nearly impossible.

Unlike previous Republican parties, committed primariliy to deficit reduction, this group of representatives is more committed to smaller government, enabled by lower taxes. In other words, the primary role of lower taxes is not fiscal prudence, but the desire to “starve the beast,” to force the elimination of government programs. Thus the negotiations with Democrats are about more than numbers, where President Obama has actually proposed higher deficit reduction than Republicans, compared to the actual philosophy of the role of government.

If this is the case, what hope is there for ever achieving agreement? The numbers can be split, but ideological differences can not. While some saner heads, such as Senators McConnell and McCain, as well as Representative John Boehner, remember the government shutdown of 1995 and its effect on their electoral chances, the “young Turks” do not. And their main goal seems to be ideological purity not the fate of the country.

If that analysis is true, they face a rude come-uppance. When the stock market goes into free fall, when key checks are not paid — never mind Social Security — their phones will light up like Christmas trees, and they will come face to face with reality. It’s unfortunate that it may have to come to that day, and I’m still praying that it won’t.