Eliminating Politics From Politics

Think for a moment about a tough political issue.

In the year 2034, for example, the Social Security program will no longer take in enough money to pay benefits at the current level. If we want Social Security to continue to operate in its current form, we have to fix that.

Every sentient person in the country knows how to fix it: We must raise the eligibility age beyond age 62, raise the full retirement age beyond 67, and increase the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax. (Employers and employees currently contribute 6.2% of wages to Social Security, up to a cap of $160,000 in 2023. You could raise that cap — slightly increase it, or double it, or triple it, or eliminate it entirely — if you were considering reforms.) We should also consider means testing Social Security, so rich people who don’t need Social Security benefits are paid less or nothing at all.

This has to be done slowly, to avoid hurting people who are already at or near retirement age. Perhaps, for example, we could say that for people currently younger than 40, the eligibility or full retirement age goes up by a year, or those ages slowly go up for younger and younger people.

Devising an appropriate solution would take some horse-trading, but this could be solved by putting a couple of smart people alone in a room for a couple of days.  The problem isn’t hard; it just requires compromise.

Our political system doesn’t permit this. Gerrymandered congressional districts mean that Democrats are generally running in heavily Democratic districts, and Republicans are generally running in heavily Republican districts. In 2022, elections for fully 84% of House seats either were decided by 10 points or more or were uncontested. This means that Democrats basically can’t lose in general elections; they can lose only in primaries in which they are attacked from the left.  Similarly, Republicans basically can’t lose in general elections; they can lose only in primaries in which they are attacked from the right.

Democrats in Congress are thus encouraged to take far-left positions (to avoid any primary challenge from the left), and Republicans are encouraged to take far-right positions (to avoid any primary challenge from the right). Nobody is encouraged to reach a fair compromise in the middle, even if compromise would be best for the country. Instead, you take an extreme position, avoid a primary, cruise to victory in the general election in your gerrymandered district, and keep your job.

If anyone had the temerity to suggest that the Social Security system could be saved in a heartbeat by reasonable compromise, both sides in Congress would erupt in horror. Democrats would insist that it’s outrageous to suggest that the retirement age be raised because that amounts to a cut in benefits, which Democrats won’t countenance. And Republicans would insist that it’s outrageous to raise the cap on the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax, because that’s a tax increase, which Republicans won’t countenance.

The political system thus forces the Social Security system, which could be fixed in a heartbeat, to continue on the road to financial disaster.

In another area, we’ve designed a system to remove politics from politics. It’s extremely hard to close military bases, because if you close a base in one Congressional district, you eliminate a ton of jobs in that district, which could cause the local member of Congress to lose his or her seat. Closing military bases thus becomes a heated political issue. To take the politics out of base closings, Congress enacted the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act under which the Secretary of Defense proposes which bases should be closed, an independent nine-member panel evaluates the list (by taking testimony, etc.) and has the chance to revise the list, the panel is required to provide its list of proposed closures to the president by a specified date, and the president passes the list on to Congress with the provision that the list must be approved or rejected in its entirety — no haggling is permitted.

This takes the politics out of politics, forcing Congress either to accept or reject wholesale the reasonable choices made by the panel.

Why not do the same thing with Social Security? Set up a panel, let the panel propose changes, and then vote on whether the changes suggested by the panel should be accepted or rejected as a whole.

This would permit the politicians on both sides to grouse — “I hate the benefit cuts” or “I hate the tax increases,” but “I wasn’t permitted to change the proposal; the damned panel forced my hand” — while solving an important national problem.

Come to think of it, why don’t we elect politicians who broadly campaign on the basis of taking politics out of politics:

What’s your position on the budget deficit?

We should refer it to a bipartisan (or nonpartisan) panel, and then have an up-or-down vote on the compromise solution that the panel reaches.

What’s your position on immigration reform?

We should refer it to a bipartisan (or nonpartisan) panel, and then have an up-or-down vote on the compromise solution that the panel reaches.

It would be awfully easy to campaign that way — candidates wouldn’t have to memorize answers to endless questions about endless different issues — and it might actually result in Congress achieving something.

No?

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.