Structural change, structural change, structural change. If I hear another talking head “expert” end his/her commentary with a wise nod and the phrase, “We must undertake structural change,” I’m going to scream.

Whether they’re talking about Greece and the Euro crisis, the U.S. federal deficit or the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, it’s always the same ending — structural change — as if that was some insightful and suddenly obvious conclusion. “Oh, I get it, the butler killed her in the pantry; we must arrest the butler.” Last year I rebuilt the stairs in my house to install a chair rail because my mother-in-law can’t walk anymore. That’s structural change. What’s that got to do with Greek debt or cushy pensions?

For me structural change in the economy means changing rules we set up a long time ago that don’t work any more. These rules weren’t originally evil or the result of some conspiracy we’ve now uncovered. They were simply created in different times under different circumstances. They worked OK for a while (otherwise they wouldn’t have lasted long enough to become “structural”), but now circumstances are different, and they don’t work so well. It’s not the fault of the rules; it’s the fault of the changed circumstances.

In 1935, average life expectancy in the U.S. was slightly less than 62. When Social Security was set up, therefore, the effective rule for eligibility was, “Live three years beyond the average national life expectancy and you can sign up for your check.” By 2010, our average national life expectancy had increased by 17 years to nearly 79, but we had increased Social Security eligibility by only two years to 67. So today the effect of the eligibility rule is, “You can sign up for your check 12 years before you reach national average life expectancy.” Nothing wrong with the rule, but its consequences — and fiscal impacts — are vastly different under the changed circumstances of today’s health.

That’s why debates that focus on the rules are so fruitless. Change the benefits! Pay their fair share! Raise taxes! Cut taxes! Such cries are pointless because all they do is ensure that winners and losers (whomever they may be on any particular topic) circle their wagons, assemble their lobbyists and fight to the death to protect whatever the rule is that provides their particular benefit.

We need look no farther than Maine’s most recent — and extraordinarily modest — attempt at tax reform to see how this stereotypical dance played out. Before the ink had dried on the governor’s signature, all manner of service providers from ski resorts to barbers and massage therapists massed behind the fig leaf of “No new taxes!,” spread out across the countryside to gather signatures, and “structural change” was repealed.

Result? We’re stuck with a system where the vast majority gets a free ride on the backs of car dealers, building supply owners and clothing stores. When sales slow, revenue falls and our representatives assemble in Augusta to fight over whose health benefits get eliminated. We could sing the same refrain about local dependence on property taxes and the fight over aging, half-filled schools, rusting bridges and decrepit town garages.

The only way out of this mess is to take our collective attention off the rules and look at our circumstances. If the first episode of “Lost” or “Survivor, Bora Bora” had started with a debate over whose retirement and and health benefits would get funded first and how the remaining participants were going to pay for them, we’d have switched channels and the sponsors would have canceled the shows. We need to cancel the shows our political candidates have planned for the coming season, take a good look at this strange new world, and get down to the more productive and rewarding work of figuring out how we’re going to survive in this place where we have suddenly found ourselves.

Charles Lawton is senior economist for Planning Decisions, a public policy research firm. He can be reached at:

clawton@planningdecisions.com