Last night, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich went head-to-head on the long-term solvency of Social Security.\u00a0 Gingrich proposed – again – individual accounts, modeled after the highly successful Chilean “Little Passbook” system.\u00a0 (From Gingrich’s remarks, the system’s architect, Jose Pinera, was slated to give a presentation on the subject later, but you can see him speak here<\/a>.)\u00a0 Santorum pointed out the plan’s Achilles’ Heel, the cost of covering defined benefits to current and soon-to-be recipients during the transition.<\/p>\n Instead, Santorum, and then Romney, proposed more tweaks to the system, of the kind that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.\u00a0 Santorum’s solution, raising the retirement age a couple of years, isn’t going to solve a mismatch caused by declining birth rates and decades-longer life spans.\u00a0 Romney’s seemed unaware of the existence of 401(k) accounts and IRAs.<\/p>\n To erstwhile Romney supporter Jennifer Rubin, however, not only is Santorum’s limited vision correct, it’s an excuse to boost the un-nominatable Santorum<\/a> at the expense of Gingrich, who poses a real national threat to her candidate:<\/p>\n …we have a huge, nagging debt right now and he\u2019s going to make it worse with his plan. And while Santorum was certainly right on substance, Gingrich\u2019s glibness may have successfully concealed how really silly is his policy proposal.<\/p>\n In short, aside from the political hurdles (George Bush died on his sword over individual accounts) Gingrich\u2019s Social Security plan is, as Santorum claimed, irresponsible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Individual accounts funded by individual contributions – defined contribution accounts – are the right answer, and the longer we wait, the greater the cost, the greater the burden on the country’s finances.\u00a0 But to Rubin, the right answer, easier to implement today than tomorrow, is “irresponsible,” while ineffective tweaks and redundant savings plans are “right on substance.”<\/p>\n