Earlier this week, members of the U.S. Senate and House approved massive legislation to restore emergency jobless benefits to millions of Americans who have been out of work for more than six months.

President Obama has been pushing hard for this legislation, which will add $34 billion to the nation’s huge and dangerous debt.

It has been a bitter political battle, with Democratic leaders, such as Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying “Republicans are declaring an all-out war on unemployed Americans.”

Republicans have said they favor the payments but, rather than add to the national debt, they want to find ways to make cuts in other areas or use millions of unexpended funds from last year’s economic stimulus package to cover the costs.

The bill will authorize states to provide retroactive support for an estimated 2.5 million people who have seen their unemployment checks cut off since June 2 and make income support available for 99 weeks to millions of others who have been without checks because they exhausted state benefits that run out after 26 weeks.

The unemployment matter is sure to be a central and heated issue in the November elections.

At the same time, House and Senate members were debating the unemployment payment issue. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told legislators unemployment is likely to remain stubbornly high for several years, straining families and endangering the nation’s economic stability and competitiveness.

He said, “Long-term unemployment not only imposes exceptional near-term hardships on workers and their families, it also erodes skills and may have long-lasting effects on workers’ employment and earnings prospects.”

The Fed chief added, “Not only for the sake of the unemployed and for the short-term strength of the economy, but also for a long-term viability in international competitiveness, I think we need to be very seriously concerned.”

In Bernanke’s presentation, there was much talk about how long the unemployment numbers are likely to remain high, and the year 2012 was used as a marker.

Is it a coincidence the next presidential election is in 2012 and the state of the economy is sure to be a major issue?

So far, Obama’s various stimulus efforts have fallen far short of the optimistic and grand-sounding justifications for the massive spending called for by the president and backed by solid numbers of Democrats in the Senate and House.

Massive bills, more than 2,000 pages, costing billions and calling for changes in our health care system and our banking laws have been passed with the majority of lawmakers admitting they had not read the bills. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the public, as well as lawmakers who voted for the health bill, will have no idea what the measure called for, or its consequences, good or bad, until the bill was passed and goes into effect.

It is a sad, but probably accurate, prediction that the upcoming presidential elections, as well as this November’s midterm elections, will be filled with raw and mean-spirited accusations.

Already there is reason to wonder whether Obama and his inner circle are counting on millions of unemployed to be solid in their support for Obama. Democratic spokespeople are likely to claim Obama and his Democratic Party members in Congress are the only ones the unemployed can count on to keep the unemployment checks coming. They will emphasize and overstate the GOP position relative to this week’s votes in the House and Senate, deliberately omitting the GOP concerns about the growing national debt AND the fact that Republicans said they favored extending unemployment benefits but wanted money from unexpended stimulus funds to be used rather than adding to the national debt.

What is likely to happen to this country if jobless numbers continue to climb? Combine this with an ever-growing and unchecked national debt and growing numbers of Americans who believe the government owes them employment or else unemployment income, free health care and other government-paid benefits, plus a redistribution of wealth in this country. Or, as Obama called for in his presidential campaign, “a fundamental change in this country.”

There are no easy answers. Americans should be concerned about how to help those who cannot find a meaningful job and those who need medical care, as well as how to do a better job of providing a sound educational environment for American children and promote a clean environment.

Obama is facing massive challenges, but he told the nation he knew how to solve the problems and that “change” was in order.

So far, it hasn’t worked the way he said it would and this nation is further in debt than at any time in our history. Sadly, it appears the country is becoming more and more divided and emotional about the direction this is headed.

This week’s debates on the unemployment situation are just a prelude to what is coming, and, chances are, it will not be pretty — or good for the country.

How much legislation is being drafted and passed with upcoming elections in mind?