The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Concern in G.O.P. Over State Focus on Social Issues,” demonstrates a recurring pattern: the Republicans run elections on the economy, and then, as soon as they get into power, they enact all kinds of social legislation that the voters did not support.

It happened with the Tea Party in Washington, and it’s happening all over the state level as well. In fact, it’s occurring so frequently that national Republicans are becoming concerned about losing independent voters.

What sort of legislation? Well, it’s not just restrictions on abortion. Tennessee and Wisconsin, for example, are passing conservative legislation about the teaching of evolution vs. creationism, contraception vs. abstinence and a whole slew of other issues.

Republicans now have complete control of the executive and legislature in 21 states, and they are using it while they have it. In one of the most (in)famous examples, Scott Walker in Wisconsin attempted to curtail union rights to collective bargaining. He may be recalled for that.

This focus on social issues without the voter’s approval (Republicans ran on the economy) is completely deceitful and deserves to be rejected. Otherwise, it will occur on the national level as well. At least, Senator Santorum was honest about his positions, even if you don’t agree with them.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Fears Rise That Recovery May Falter in the Spring,” describes a persistent nagging concern about the durability of our nation’s economic recovery.

Despite a transition to a growth mode — the recession has been over for months — some factors are affecting the vibrancy of the recovery such as high gas prices, concerns about the European economy and the tentative nature of consumer confidence.

And, even though the stock market has been tracking upward for some time now, the S&P 500 has dropped three percent since the beginning of April. That does not augur well for continued growth.

There are still areas for optimism as car and retail sales are continuing their vigorous activity. The unemployment rate remains stuck at over eight percent, though, and does not seem to be poised for a significant further drop.

As with so many other areas of life, the fate of the economy could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If consumers feel confident, they spend, sparking the economy and thus making them feel more confident. The reverse, unfortunately, is also true. With all the statistics, it is ironic that the real fate of the economy could be based on something as intangible as a person’s feelings.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Citigroup’s Chief Rebuffed on Pay by Shareholders,” may describe a turning point in President Obama’s campaign to reintroduce economic fairness in the way people are treated in this country.

For the first time ever, shareholders have rebelled against excessive pay packages for the chiefs of financial giants. The vote on executive compensation, required by the much criticized Dodd Frank act, served as a break on a $15 million annual salary proposed for the head of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit.

Pandit’s obscene salary was rejected by 55 percent of the company’s shareholders, partly because of Citigroup’s so-so performance this year and a lack of incentives to improve it. The chairman of the Board of Citigroup asserted that he will take the vote into account in his final decision.

We need to take a second look at what happened here. The rebellion against excessive executive pay was a primary component of the Occupy Wall Street movement before President Obama appropriated the issue in his promotion of the Buffet rule, the idea that Warren Buffet should not pay a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary.

Now, however, wealthy institutional investors have adopted this concept as their own as well, albeit in a much diluted form. Their protest against Mr. Bandit’s salary was primarily based on his poor performance. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Afghan Assaults Signal Evolution of a Militant Foe,” paints a gloomy picture of our so-called progress in Afghanistan. Even worse, it describes a colossal intelligence failure by NATO and the Afghan national security apparatus.

The Haqqani network, once only a collection of border spies and smugglers operating between Pakistan and Afghanistan, has now demonstrated a sophistication worthy of the best efforts of al-Qaeda. The organization not only used 40 fighters to carry out seven simultaneous attacks without providing any warning to government forces. These fighters needed to be supported by a vast network including financiers, reconnaissance and logistics experts, and weapons suppliers.

Western troops, who are operating under a deadline of complete withdrawal by 2014, failed utterly to detect the attacks in advance, and Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, was right to criticize them.

Of course, the successful attack does not mean that the Haqqani are on the verge of taking over the government. It does mean, though, that they are a force to be reckoned with.

There should be a thorough investigation of this failure. It has punctured the image that any government should maintain, the ability to keep its citizens safe. The repercussions of attacks even in the nation’s capital of Kabul imply that there is nowhere in the country that is secure.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Campaigns Plan Maximum Push to Raise Money,” provides a sobering look at the role money had on the Republican primary and predicts an even greater outpouring during the general election.

While President Obama may not actually raise a billion dollars — his advisers claim that’s a scare tactic to boost conservative donations — it is going to get pretty close. And with Romney aides predicting a haul of $600 million, not counting their super PAC, it puts great pressure on the President’s campaign to match or exceed it.

But President Obama has only recently launched his super PAC, Priorities USA Action, and it has had trouble raising money so far (not counting Bill Maher’s generous million-dollar donation).

When Mr. Obama bowed out of the federal financing system for the 2008 election, he ended up outspending McCain by a ratio of 4 to 1. This time, many predict the Republicans will achieve parity, and that’s a chilling thought.

Chilling on a variety of fronts: the Republicans would reverse the clock on so many ways we have progressed since the 1950′s, reducing Pell grants and other investments in education, turning back women’s rights on many fronts beyond the hot-button issue of abortion, decimating support for medical research, the environment and so much more.

Yes, the contrast is stark in this election — the Republicans are truly promoting a form of social Darwinism, but human beings are not wild animals. It is our protection and caring for each other that sets us apart and makes us civilized.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Santorum Quits Race, Clearing a Path for Romney,” provides an expected denouement to the contest with Mitt Romney the undisputed winner.

But the way Romney won could come back to bite him. His approach was basically a no holds barred negative campaign to destroy his opponents. That left a bitter taste in their mouths, most especially Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, neither of whom have any desire to rally around and support him now.

Mr. Romney, in the process, ran up his own unfavorable ratings, making the cardinal error of failing to define himself positively before embarking on a negative campaign against his opponents. While his tactics did give him the victory, they also depended on reduced turnouts for the result. This reduced turnout of Republicans could prove critical on election day.

Santorum did not even mouth the word Romney during his suspension speech, a sign of how bitter the contest had become. His immediate reason for leaving the race involved the $2.9 million negative campaign Romney was teeing up against him in Pennsylvania. If Santorum lost his home state, it would have doomed any Presidential run in 2016, and that’s why he quit.

One wonders what Romney will do now to try and woo the conservatives back without affecting his chances in the general election.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Facebook to Buy Mobile Start-Up for $1 Billion,” shows the power of the online industry and particularly that of Facebook.

Facebook was designed for use with larger computers and browsers while the field is increasingly being dominated by mobile devices. Instagram provided a social network, based on photo sharing from smartphones, and Facebook bought it in order to facilitate its own move into the mobile industry.

While some more cynical people suggest that Facebook’s real motive was to steal the programming talent from Instagram, others noted the strategic elements of the purchase, and Mark Zuckerberg’s promise to keep Instagram intact.

Zuckerberg, of course, will be holding his own public offering for Facebook next month, and many predict a $500 billion valuation for the company. Meanwhile, the two founders of Instagram, Mark Krieger and Kevin Systrom, are now worth millions themselves, and they are only in their 20s.

The next move by Facebook, many predict, will be to monetize the smartphone software industry in much the same way it has done for standard social networks. For those of us who treasure their smartphones, that is not an appealing possibility. Facebook is one of the few software giants with absolutely no customer service.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Transfers Control of Raids to Afghanistan,” describes a new agreement that is actually a fig leaf to justify longer U.S. involvement in the country.

The facts of the story involve a legal agreement that Afghan forces will be in the lead for future night raids and the requirement of a warrant 72 hours in advance. However, buried further down near the end of the story is the real information for those attempting to read between the lines — the U.S. wanted the agreement in place before a coming NATO meeting in Chicago at the end of May when they will hammer out an agreement between the U.S. and Afghan government for the next 10 years.

This 10-year proposal commits the United States far longer than any American, except perhaps the military brass, wants for the future. And this supposed yielding of sovereignty will give Afghanistan the so-called independence to agree to 10 more years of “occupation.”

The agreement itself provides dubious sovereignty anyway. The Afghans supposedly have to get a warrant 72 hours in advance of a night raid, but the requirement can be waived if immediate action is required. The U.S. will be sharing intelligence and can be called in by their Afhan colleagues at any point during the operation. And, since the U.S. pays the salaries of the Afghan military to the tune of $4.1 billion per year, the Afghan army is likely to remain subservient in almost every respect.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “After a Winter of Strong Gains, Job Growth Ebbs,” demonstrates the continuing uncertainty about the economic recovery, with month-to-month results giving mixed signals.

After two previous months of strong growth with around 250,000 jobs added each, this past month only showed a gain of 120,000 jobs. It followed a recent pattern in the past two years with encouraging statistics in the winter followed by a pullback in the spring.

Of course, the Democrats and Republicans each tried to put their own spin on the data, but it seems like we will have to wait another month to see if this slowdown is an aberration or reason to be concerned. Manufacturing continues to lead the way in job growth, but a number of disconcerting signals suggest that its impact might be limited. These signals include a decline in average hours per workweek and in temporary positions — both indicators should increase before employers decide to hire more people.

There are also a number of outside developments to be concerned about as well. One, of course, is rising gas prices. Uncertainty about healthcare requirements is a second. And the economic situation in Europe continues to be unsettled as well, now with a weak bond offering by Spain. Next month’s unemployment figures will be even more important.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Christie Leaning on Tax Subsidies in Hunt for Jobs,” describes the typical Republican in-bed-with-business approach to the economy. The Governor has misused the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit Program and been criticized by government reform groups for it. He has handed out subsidies for 10-to-15 years into the future, ostensibly to keep jobs in New Jersey, but in reality providing major subsidies to businesses above and beyond all reason.

The amounts are staggering and work out to more than $300,000 per job retained. Probably the most reprehensible is a deal offered to Prudential for more than $250 million to help the company build an office tower. Meanwhile, Prudential’s previous landlords, also in New Jersey, are up in arms about the situation and have filed suit.

Other organizations benefiting from Governor Christie’s largesse are Panasonic, Campbell Soup and Goya Foods. Campbell actually elminated jobs but still kept some of the subsidy.

Needless to say, Mayor Bloomberg is not too pleased about the situation either. But he has done a better job of saving jobs for New York City than Governor Christie, without any subsidies. New York City has recovered 80 percent of the jobs lost in the recession while New Jersey has only recovered 20 percent.