That aspect of Social Security was to be completely expected though.
While living longer is a disturbance that may not have been originally expected, it is one that will also pay off later. Logically, it would follow that if a boom of young people were paying into Social Security, it would have a surplus, as it once did. That wave would inevitably age however, at which point the program would have a deficit. Naturally it follows that that wave must eventually die, at which point the program will begin to stabilize again. One issue though is that the government dived into the program's funds during surpluses when they shouldn't have. The baby boomers aren't going to be drawing on Social Security forever. The whole thing was a completely cyclical process that resolves itself. It is only a problem because politicians were greedy and used it for other things. The program itself is sound when viewed in the long run, because on the face of it, it is not government spending. It is money people have paid into the system receiving that money back at a point in the future when they may no longer be able to work. In effect, it is a government mandated retirement nest, because most people neglect to adequately create a retirement fund when left to their own devices, so this provides, at the least, a very basic level of safety.
The only things that need to be addressed about the Social Security system is raising the age of qualification continuously as people live longer, healthier years, and making sure the government doesn't raid the fund for other purposes, so that the inevitable surpluses can be made to cover the inevitable deficits. So it isn't actually the program's fault that Social Security is part of the exorbitant debt the country has.
Greedy politicians and bureaucrats looked at the surpluses and thought it was just free money, when really, this is exactly the time that money should've been saved for, as was its intent.