Give Gov. Dannel P. Malloy credit, he has dealt more forthrightly with addressing the state’s pension obligations than any governor before him. On the other hand, he has little choice. Without a course adjustment, the state is rapidly headed for fiscal disaster, with the pension obligation monster eating up an ever larger percentage of the budget, crowding out other programs and requiring more tax increases.

Credit rating agencies have noticed, imperiling the state’s credit standing, which could mean higher borrowing rates if nothing changes, making matters worse.

Malloy got the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, which represents the state unions on the issue, to the bargaining table. Self-interest was a major incentive. The pension fund faced instability and the unions want to make sure those checks keep coming into the future.

The resultant deal does provide a path to sustainability, but is fundamentally unfair because it only calls for sacrifice by one party, taxpayers, who will be paying far, far into the future to secure the pension system. Past and future retirees give up nothing.

As explained by Keith M. Phaneuf, the Connecticut Mirror’s fiscal watchdog reporter, the deal obtains manageability by shifting around $14 billion in pension expenses owed before 2032 onto future generations.

As things now stand, the state obligation to keep the pension fund solvent could rise to as much as $3 billion by 2025, $5 billion by 2030, and in the neighborhood of $6.6 billion by 2032, according to a 2014 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, conducted at Malloy’s request.

Currently, the state dedicates $1.6 billion of its roughly $20 billion budget for the pension plan, and that’s proved to be a challenge.

Instead of confronting those balloon payments, the new deal would spread the obligation over the next 30 years. Under the deal, a payment of $2.2 billion is expected in 2022, remaining there through 2032, then dropping to $1.8 billion and staying at that level through at least 2046.

Also under the deal, the administration and the unions agreed to drop the estimated return on investment to 6.9 percent, which may still prove overly optimistic in calculating state obligations going forward, but which is far better than the 8 percent pie-in-the-sky calculation Connecticut has been using.

Our problem is that a fair deal would require changes to cut pension costs for the state as well as provide a path to properly funding them. Republican legislative leaders, for example, have called for state workers to contribute 4 percent of their pay toward their pensions, certainly a reasonable request that would not result in a hardship. According to the Connecticut Mirror, about one-quarter of state employees contribute nothing toward their pensions, most others pay only 2 percent.

There is no provision for a cap on the size of pensions or for changes in how the state calculates them. Currently, union members can use big overtime payments to pump up their earnings and so the number that will be used to calculate their pensions. The state should calculate pensions on base pay only. And why not a cap? Does any state employee really need a pension in excess of $100,000 per year to live comfortably in retirement?

The problem is the unions face no pressure to make such concessions. Their contract locks in pension rules and other benefits through 2022.

This is where Republicans can flex some of their newfound political muscle. Due to GOP gains in the past election, the Senate is split 18-18 and the Democratic majority in the House has narrowed to 79-72.

The Democratic leadership appears ready to use procedural rules to let this one-sided agreement become law without a vote. In insisting on a vote, Republicans will find themselves on the right side of public sentiment and should be able to peel off some Democrats. Getting the matter to a vote provides leverage to push for labor concessions as part of a final deal.

There should also be a vote on a new law pledging that the legislature will make the necessary payments required over the next 30 years. Future legislatures could repeal or amend that pledge to avoid the obligation, but at least they would be forced to go on the record doing so, rather than be able to quietly shirk their responsibility.

For years, small Republican minorities in Hartford criticized from the sidelines, pointing to their political helplessness. They are in the game now. Let’s see how they play it.