The recession seems to be hitting the Social Security trust fund pretty hard. At least, that’s what the lead story in today’s New York Times seems to say.

Medicare is supposed to run out of money even earlier, in 2017. That’s despite total spending on the two programs of about $1 trillion, about one-third of the federal budget.

Despite the administration’s claims that runaway health costs are contributing to the situation, it does make it difficult to launch a major new spending program, national health insurance, in light of the new fiscal constraints. And Republicans are bound to play up the situation even more.

Part of the problem: the Congress is timid about providing any new sources of revenue to help fund national health insurance because they will be branded as tax-and-spend liberals and face heated challenges in upcoming elections.

Noone likes to lose their job.

But, as the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Obama’s plan to tax health insurance plans provided by employers seems like a good, targeted way to pay for national health insurance, and all he needs, for a change, is a leader on Capitol Hill to pave the way.

Stay tuned to see how this developing drama will play out.

Today’s lead story in The New York Times is titled, “Obama’s Budget Faces Challenge by Party Barons.” It describes how President Obama’s consensual approach with Congress may wind up eviscerting many of his proposals when it is translated into actual language by five prominent Democrats: Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate’s Finance Committee; Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate’s Budget Committee, Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; John Spratt, Chairman of the House Budget Committee; and Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Each Democrat is defending special interests from its own committee, interests conflicting with some of President Obama’s signature program. The Democrats are opposing a limitation on tax deductions for the most wealthy Americans and a cut in government subsidies to big farmers and large agricultural businesses. They want to decrease spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security even more than President Obama. And the proposed cap-and-trade system to discourage carbon dioxide emissions may be in trouble, too.

That’s one of the main problems when you have a President proposing legislation for a national constituency while members of Congress are concerned about their local constituencies. This is a natural feature of our democracy since its founding and even led to the creation of a bicameral legislative branch: the House, with short two-year terms, to stay close to the people, and the Senate, with six-year terms, and more “enlightened” leadership.

Hopefully, in a time of crisis, Congressional representatives will be able to suspend concern about their own jobs and act in the national interest. Whether they will end up doing so or not, remains to be seen.