Legislative leaders in Harrisburg were busy pointing fingers at one another late last week, trying to affix blame for the failure of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to pass a Democrat-backed tax- reform plan. It's not difficult to see political angles being played on both sides of the conflict.

GOP leaders, for their part, say they believe the limited tax-reform plan that would have trimmed taxes for lower-income senior citizens could be improved. As a result, they put off voting on property tax reform until June, at the earliest. That schedule means nothing on tax reform will happen until after the May 16 primary election.

Democrats, including Gov. Ed Rendell, are fuming over the delayed vote and complain that Republicans refused to act now so they could deny Rendell the satisfaction of boasting to voters about achieving property tax reform.

But Republican critics, and most Pennsylvanians, can argue that the proposal that was passed by the Senate but snubbed by the House was modest at best.

By borrowing $200 million from the Pennsylvania Lottery Fund, the plan would have helped fund property tax reductions ranging from $200 a year to $975 a year for more than 700,000 low-income senior citizens. The rest of the plan relied on the often-predicted (but still questionable) $1 billion in slot machine gambling revenue to reduce property taxes for most Pennsylvanians. Financial analysis by Republicans suggests tax relief would average from $150 to $200 a year.

It should be noted that there is no magic bullet to property tax reform. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves. The money has to come from somewhere — and somebody. So-called tax reform is mostly a shifting of the tax burden.

But the current flurry of activity, following a reported seven months of behind-closed-doors discussion by legislative leaders, is underwhelming. And the timing, just a few weeks before the primary election, suggests re-election politics was a key factor in the timing.

Many members of the state legislature are facing primary challenges, due in part to the controversial pay-raise vote taken at 2 a.m. last July 7.

That pay raise was repealed about four months later, but voter anger has continued to smolder over the 16 percent to 34 percent pay raise itself, as well as the way it was passed with no public input and no open debate in the legislature. Adding to the voter fury was the acceptance by many lawmakers of additional pay immediately after the stealth pay-raise vote, despite a clear prohibition of mid-term pay increases in the state constitution. More than half of the lawmakers used a scheme known in Harrisburg as unvouchered expenses, through which lawmakers' monthly expense checks were increased by the exact amount they would have received under the higher salary, but without any increase in their actual expenses.

Most property owners and other taxpayers are disappointed that no meaningful tax reform has come out of Harrisburg. But last summer's pay raise and many lawmakers' arrogant violation of various constitutional provisions regarding how bills are to be passed suggests that voters wanting tax reform should first look to a reform of the legislature — meaning major incumbent replacement.

The first step in that process comes with next week's primary election, when entrenched incumbents, particularly those in leadership positions, should be targeted for defeat for repeatedly demonstrating that they are more concerned with their own political or financial well-being than with the concerns of the average Pennsylvanian.

The behavior of the current crop of top-ranked lawmakers from both parties has made it clear that dramatic changes in the makeup of the legislature will be required before real tax reform or any other meaningful measures that are helpful to average citizens emerge from Harrisburg.

Voters across the state should be asking their representatives in Harrisburg about their involvement in the pay-raise vote. They should ask if the lawmaker took the unvouchered expenses. They also should ask about the massive pension increase lawmakers awarded themselves and other state employees a few years earlier. The answers to those questions will be much more revealing about a politician's priorities than anything they claim to be doing on behalf of tax reform.

The May 16 primary election is an opportunity to change the makeup, and thus the culture, in Harrisburg. It has become increasingly clear that without reform of the legislature, meaningful reform of taxes or anything else is unlikely.