To people unfamiliar with the issue, the Pennsylvania General Assembly's proposal to use $75 million from the legislature's $215 million financial reserve to reduce property taxes looks like an act of generosity.

But don't be fooled. It isn't.

First, the legislature shouldn't have an ongoing reserve fund such as currently exists. Money not spent each year should be returned to the state treasury, or be deposited in the commonwealth's Rainy Day Fund to be used by the state during a time of serious financial difficulty.

The General Assembly's reserve fund has an unacceptable purpose — to be a shield against a governor who might decide to withhold money from the legislative branch due to a dispute with lawmakers.

Pennsylvania's legislative branch shouldn't feel a need to stash away such protection funds to guarantee its ability to perform its functions — or to ensure peaceful coexistence with the executive branch.

If the legislature resists returning the $75 million to the commonwealth's General Fund or allocating it to the Rainy Day Fund, there are other worthy uses for the money, in addition to property tax reduction, that should be considered.

For example, a few million dollars should be allocated to the state Attorney General's Office to hire additional investigators to probe questionable practices in all levels of Pennsylvania government. The 267-page indictment handed down against powerful state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo of Philadelphia has, in the eyes of many state residents, raised concerns about the possibility of illegal activities by other state officials, both elected and appointed.

Perhaps several more millions of dollars should be set aside for sizable rewards to whistleblowers who provide information that exposes illegal activity and those involved.

Considering all of the alleged wrongdoing that has been tied to Fumo, state taxpayers have cause to wonder whether the amount of money saved as a result of additional investigations would dwarf the property tax benefits that the legislature is proposing to provide to homeowners.

The questionable, generous bonus payments for legislative staffers last year, questionable spending in connection with $50 million legislative leadership accounts, and Fumo's legal troubles are just the latest ingredients to state residents' roster of suspicions about many elected officials and those who work for them.

The 2005 pay-raise vote, some lawmakers' subsequent acceptance of "unvouchered expenses," contrary to provisions of the state constitution, and the legislature's coziness with the state Supreme Court made clear, Pennsylvanians could hardly have less confidence in their state government.

A significant housecleaning occurred during the elections of 2006 but that was not enough. Using part of the legislature's reserve funds to investigate other possible instances of wrongdoing, as one means to help flesh out further abuses and boost the reform movement within Pennsylvania government, would show that lawmakers are serious about fixing what's wrong in Harrisburg.

Lawmakers have yet to demonstrate that a strong commitment to good, effective state government that operates totally within the guidelines of state law and the state constitution — and, first and foremost, on behalf of constituents' best interests, not their own — is really their intent.

Simply targeting $75 million for property tax reductions can't buy that assurance.

It can be concluded that the basis for the property tax "gift" is a desire to distract state residents from the serious issues and concerns that demand their continuing close attention.

It also can be concluded that lawmakers pushing the property tax proposal hope that state taxpayers will forget about the $140 million in reserve money that the legislature still would have under its control but shouldn't.

— J.R.K.