Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, announced that the proposal would not be part of the debt-limit talks that began a few days after President Barack Obama’s announcement of the killing of Osama bin Laden. House Republicans may have learned about sacred cows. Many members of Congress view the national debt as a crisis that requires drastic action. They look for anything and everything that can be cut without causing severe harm to the nation. They look for ways to cut things that are not absolutely necessary. It made sense to them to introduce means testing to Medicare. They believed they could help reduce the national debt by providing Medicare only to those who could demonstrate that they absolutely need it, and not provide it to those who have assets or private insurance coverage. The Republican members of Congress who voted for the proposal to eliminate the Medicare guarantee for the elderly believed that their constituents shared their zeal in reducing the national debt, but did not count on their unwillingness to make the deepest and most difficult cuts. The vote to eliminate the guarantee for Medicare for the elderly angered those who are most likely to vote, the elderly.

This fiasco could bode ill for Republican congressional representatives running for re-election in 2012. Their votes are on record, and their Democratic opponents are likely to use these voting records in campaign ads during the election season of 2012. Democrats seeking to unseat Republican congressional incumbents are likely to play on the perception of Republicans as cold and heartless, serving the interests of the extremely wealthy at the expense of the aged and vulnerable.

However they vote on budget issues, current members of the United States Congress will probably make things more difficult for themselves when they run for re-election in 2012. If they vote against raising the limit on the national debt, their opponents will likely run ad campaigns that claim that the Senator or Representative voted against the interests of small business. They will claim that they voted to make it more expensive to raise money for expansion, killing jobs. If a Senator or Representative votes for raising the limit on the national debt, he or she will be accused of being unconcerned about the national debt. Such campaigns may feature images of babies being presented with huge tax bills, or foreigners being given the keys to the White House or the United States Capital.

Those who represent Americans in government face difficult choices. Raising the limit on the national debt will mean borrowing more money and paying more interest on that money. Current American politics is a matter of coming to an agreement what programs and services must be reduced to accomplish reducing the national debt. The president’s meeting with congressional leaders was an attempt to do so.

Members of several state legislatures may also have to defend their voting records on abortion issues. The governor of South Dakota signed a bill last month that requires women who want an abortion to wait 72 hours and undergo counseling first. Legislation is pending in Ohio that would outlaw abortion when a heartbeat can be detected in the fetus. South Dakota is now involved in a lawsuit over the recently passed law. Texas also faces litigation over a law that the governor is expected to sign soon. The law in Texas would require a woman seeking an abortion to first view a sonogram of the unborn child, or read or hear a description of the fetus written by a doctor. Legislators in Iowa want to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the idea that a fetus more than 20 weeks old can feel pain. Oklahoma already has a law that bans abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The governor there just signed a law this week that restricts how doctors can prescribe RU-486, otherwise known as the abortion pill.

Politicians would have to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution or bring a case to the Supreme Court and have the court reverse Roe v. Wade in order to ban abortion outright. Failing that, they seem to be working at dissuading women from the procedure, or making it as difficult as possible.

The language used to discuss the plan by Democratic senators reveals differences in thinking. Those who support the plan talk about having the big oil companies pay their fair share of taxes. Those who oppose the plan call the plan an increase in energy taxes. A recent television ad campaign portrays ordinary-looking people saying that the Senate plan to increase energy taxes will further increase the price of gasoline. Some of the ads claim that increased energy taxes will also further our dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps to address this issue, the Obama administration has proposed using some of the increased tax revenue to fund clean energy projects that would provide energy without the use of crude oil.

The politics associated with the price of oil and gasoline will likely be a topic of discussion in campaigns of those seeking election or re-election to the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Republican candidates will likely claim that Democrats refuse to consider any other method than increasing taxes to reduce the federal debt. They will not consider reducing spending. Democratic candidates will likely portray their Republican opponents as being in the pocket of big oil companies. They may exploit the perception among many Americans that high gas prices are caused by the greed of big oil companies. They may point to the amounts that oil companies paid in taxes, or even talk about how Americans are paying record prices for gasoline while big oil companies get tax refunds.