Pennsylvania House Minority Leader Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, is right in his observation that "(state) government is spending enough money." However, he and other General Assembly Republicans who feel this is the right time for a tax decrease should rethink that proposal.

The uncertainty tied to the economy, both on the state and national levels, dictates that state leaders tread cautiously.

The fact that the Rendell administration predicts a $425 million surplus from this year — an amount that few legislative budget analysts expect to be that large — doesn't mean there should be a rash move to put that money out of the state's reach.

It would be better for lawmakers to bolster the Rainy Day Fund to protect the state, should the economy deteriorate markedly, resulting in a drop in revenues.

Returning money to the taxpayers under such uncertain economic conditions runs the risk of the state needing a tax increase in a year or two, rather than being able to maintain the status quo.

Should the economy show significant improvement during the 2008-09 fiscal year, a tax cut would be an appropriate topic of discussion at this time next year.

Opting to beef up the Rainy Day Fund now makes the most sense.

Gov. Ed Rendell deserves praise for, in Smith's words, "constantly generating a surplus."

Smith said the surpluses have been an excuse for the administration to spend more money.

But in addition to the issues that will arise as the 2008-09 budget is assembled into its final form, there remains the important money needs tied to highway and bridge repairs and construction that must not be ignored.

Highway, bridge and mass transit needs could consume whatever surplus exists on June 30, the end of the current fiscal year, but there will be numerous other worthy programs competing for that money, such as clean-energy initiatives, electricity conservation efforts, and a health insurance plan that already is in the works.

If a $1 billion end-of-year surplus were being anticipated, GOP leaders' talk about a tax reduction might be worthy of support. But with the health of the economy so tenuous, the GOP's position is premature.

GOP leaders should closely scrutinize the programs to which Rendell will propose to direct surplus money, but those leaders also should be champions of a healthy Rainy Day Fund as an insurance policy against big tax increases in coming years.

This is an election year when all state House seats and half of the Senate seats are facing the voters, and there is the temptation for lawmakers to try to give back money to the taxpayers to project the image that they are working on the voters' behalf.

But possibly setting up the voters for worse tax-paying hardship in the not-too-distant future because of an unwarranted give-back action this year would be foolhardy.

For now, lawmakers should leave taxes at their current rates and opt for prudent spending plus a healthy commitment to savings.

Smith's concern about state spending is laudable but his acknowledgment of the state's total fiscal picture needs more work.