Connecticut legislators are as aware of the state pension fund as Prometheus was of his liver: They know it's destined to be painfully pecked at soon — in the case of the General Assembly, in January.

After all, with a behemoth of a budget shortfall, something has to give — and the state's pension fund represents a sizable part of Connecticut's budget. And while teachers' pensions are inviolate, everything else must be put on the table, according to legislators from both parties.

"We as a state government have over-committed ourselves to more than we can afford," said state Rep. Kim Fawcett, a Democrat who represents parts of Fairfield and Westport in the 133rd House district. "For 30 years, leaders for both parties made commitments that we can't live up to."

Today, Connecticut ranks as the nation's fifth-worst state in funding its other pension obligations. According to a recent Northwestern University study, the state employee pension fund will run out by 2019 at best, and sooner at worse if the expected 8 percent return on investments doesn't come home.

In this last complete actuarial valuation, the fund had $19.2 billion worth of obligations, but had barely $10 billion in assets. Put another way, it had about 52 percent of its liability.

Calls to state Rep. Chris Perone, a Democrat representing parts of Norwalk with the 137th House district, and who serves as vice chair on the finance, revenue and bonding committee, weren't returned. 

Last week, Governor-elect Dan Malloy peeked at the state budget. Suffice to say, he didn't like the numbers. The state legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis projects a $3.37 billion shortfall for 2010-11. 

"Compounding the challenge for Connecticut is the fiscal reality that the state government faces massive deficits, officially aggregating $9.5 billion over the next three fiscal years. If revenue growth fails to live up to expectations, the aggregate deficit could easily grow to $12 billion, more than twenty per cent of the projected budgets," according to the University of Connecticut's  Center of Economic Analysis.

Meanwhile, Malloy, the former mayor of Stamford said the General Assembly needs the discipline to fully fund pension funds.  

"He is a realist. He's run a city for a while. He understands the issues," state Sen. Toni Boucher said of Malloy. Boucher represents Redding, Wilton and Ridgefield, as well as parts of Weston, Bethel and New Canaan in the 26th Senate district.

"The good news is we passed a law that it's not legally possible to raid the [teachers] fund," she said. "So unless there is new legislation, it's fine."

Two years ago, Gov. M. Jodi Rell brandished the state credit card and buttressed the state's under-funded pension program for teachers. At the time Rell also got concessions in exchange for two years with no layoffs. The move saved $700 million.

But time is running down on that compromise. Changes are essential.

"One of the places to look for cuts in state spending is to look for concessions in pensions," said state Rep.-elect Gail Lavielle, a Republican representing Wilton and part of Norwalk in the 143rd House district. "I don't think you could go into this thinking there are sacred cows."

Fawcett agreed. 

She said the recent bi-partisan federal commission chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson provides a good model because it included deficit reduction strategies that would be phased in.

On a state level, phasing in is important, especially for recent and soon-to-be retirees.

"They didn't do anything wrong," Fawcett said. "They planned for a future in a system they understood. So while we have to be very sensitive to them, that doesn't mean we can't change for the long term."

Some ways to fix the problem include changing the rule of 75 to the rule of 80. Some propose putting new state hires on a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan to put the state more in line with the private sector.

However, Malloy has said he hasn't surrendered to the notion of making defined benefit plans work.

Other possibilities include persuading new state employees to contribute at least 3 percent of their income to a to retirement fund, raising the retirement age from 55 to 65 and asking for higher healthcare insurance co-pays.

"They need to make it more like regular people," Boucher said. "It is in the best interest of state employees to improve the financial integrity of the fund and take some of these cost-cutting measures."