As those responsible for representing the people of Pennsylvania, state lawmakers, even in an election year, should feel obligated to openly and honestly express their views on controversial issues involving their constituents' wallets and pocketbooks.

They should be willing to express their thoughts on sometimes controversial issues, even with an election looming.

But in today's world that just isn't so. With most state lawmakers up for re-election on Nov. 2, the last thing legislators — or political newcomers — want to do is antagonize the people who hold the key to whether they will return — or go to — the state capital.

As a lame-duck governor, Ed Rendell doesn't face the electoral pressures of those in the legislative chamber. Therefore, he can lay out a plan requiring tax and fee increases, while not having to worry about Election Day consequences.

That's what happened when Rendell unveiled a plan that would raise $1 billion to help fund the commonwealth's depleted infrastructure and mass transit budgets. It's a plan that includes an 8 percent tax on oil companies' gross profits, plus increases in vehicle registration and driver's license fees.

It was naive for Rendell to believe — if he really did — that there was any chance lawmakers would engage in serious discussion about solving the serious transportation funding shortfall prior to Nov. 2. And, it's equally unlikely there will be any serious discussion about the possible remedies before a new governor and General Assembly take office.

But the voters deserve a peek into what all those seeking office might have on their mind about transportation funding when the "new" Legislature convenes in 2011. It's not unreasonable for the voters to ask that question when the candidates are stumping for election. Three reasonable questions:

n "Would you vote to increase the vehicle registration fee?"

n "Would you vote to increase the driver's license fee?"

n "What alternatives do you see, other than increasing those fees?"

A special legislative session specifically to address the transportation money shortfall, which was planned for early this month, has been canceled — probably a good idea since nothing actually would be accomplished. With lawmakers' current attitude of distancing themselves from fee and tax increases, the current plan by lawmakers to reconvene in the middle of this month to discuss Rendell's proposals probably will be a useless exercise as well.

When Democrat Milton Shapp ran for governor in 1970, he campaigned on the need for a state income tax and fee increases to fix a money shortfall. Despite the possibility of a new hit on their personal budgets, state voters elected him that year and re-elected him in 1974.

Like Shapp in 1970, it would be uplifting if those on this year's Nov. 2 ballot would openly talk about specifics on what they feel must be done to correct not only the roads money shortfall, but the state's troubling budget picture in general.

Don't look for that to happen, though. Unfortunately, these last weeks before the election are destined to be a campaign of generalities with few specifics for solutions to the problems at hand.