The big question emanating from state House action to eliminate so-called “triple dipping” by retired state employees is why the General Assembly is just now considering an issue that should have been resolved many years ago.

The only plausible explanation is that the “gimme culture” remains so ingrained in state government that something so obvious escaped everyone’s attention — unintentionally or otherwise.

Triple dipping is the practice by which some retired state workers come back from retirement for no more than 95 days. Because the state makes them leave after 95 days or lose their pension, they’re then eligible for unemployment compensation.

Not a bad deal for those who’ve taken advantage of the opportunity at the taxpayers’ expense.

Now that the House has acted, it will be interesting to watch how the Senate reacts — whether the upper chamber will do what’s right and also vote to end the triple dipping, or relegate the measure to some dusty shelf so the not-taxpayer-friendly situation can continue.

But if the Senate balks, taxpayers should complain loudly and persistently, reminiscent of how they reacted to the unconscionable July 2005 middle-of-the-night legislative pay raise vote.

Triple dipping cost the taxpayers only about $1.1 million in 2011 — a paltry annual sum amid the big state-spending picture. But the state should not be wasting any amount of money that it can easily save.

Although now legal, triple dipping is wrong under any sense of what good management of public revenue is all about.

There’s nothing wrong with bringing back a retired employee temporarily to perform some needed task, but collecting unemployment benefits based on that temporary employment should be out of the question.

The effort to end the triple dipping passed the House by a unanimous vote on Tuesday. It should be accorded the same fate in the Senate and be quickly signed by Gov. Tom Corbett.

But even if that happens, the nagging question will persist: Why did it take so long?