According to this article, http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/17/news/economy/greenspan_socialsecurity.reut/index.htm Greenspan won't use the word "crisis" in reference to Social Security as President Bush has because he feels that "crisis" is imminent and that the problems with S.S. are not imminent. Even though it is not going to happen in the next few years, wouldn't it still be considered imminent when considering how long government takes to implement any new law or system?
As the babyboomers retire, social security will be faced with tremendous problems, and action should be taken now to prevent it. However, the cure for the problem will not occur because politicians make decisions based on whether or not it'll get them re-elected, and S.S. remedies won't procure votes.
Then again, perhaps finding ways to fix S.S. is not the answer, but better equipping individuals with the skills to invest and plan to take care of themselves in their retirement years would be better. Less government always appeals to me ... and S.S. was never intended to be the sole source of income for people in retirement.