The most important thing about the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare isn't its name. It's that it does its job effectively and efficiently.

But in a move geared more toward political correctness than anything else, state Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith, D-Chester, has put forth a proposal that the department's name be changed to remove what she says is the negative connotation associated with the term "welfare." Her proposal would change the agency's name to Department of Human Services, a term used by a number of other states and the commonwealth's county-level assistance agencies.

"I think it's just time to take away the stigma of helping those in need," McIlvaine Smith said.

Not so fast.

While some state residents might view the proposed change as not a big deal, or even desirable, there would be significant costs associated with the change. And, cash-strapped Pennsylvania doesn't need any unnecessary expenses while the deep-rooted recession continues to wreak havoc on the state's incoming revenue.

McIlvaine Smith said now is a good time to consider the change, since the state will be electing a new governor in November who will be taking office in January. At that time, the state's signs and paperwork will be changed to reflect the name of the commonwealth's new chief executive.

But a change in the department's name would require changes to all signs associated with the department, as well as forms, business cards and stationery. The change would involve considerable expense that the state should avoid at this time.

If a name change is made at any time, it should be under better financial circumstances.

There's also the issue of time — the time it would take for the General Assembly to approve the change.

On some more significant, obvious issues in the past, such as an action that kept federal highway money flowing to Harrisburg, the Legislature mustered a vote only at the last minute. With that in mind, a good question is whether lawmakers could even reach an agreement on the name change advocated by McIlvaine Smith in time for the changes that the gubernatorial election will necessitate.

But the bigger issue is that the state doesn't have the money to spend on things not absolutely necessary — although it continues to do so on many other fronts.

One of the proposal's opponents, state Rep. Gordon Denlinger, R-Lancaster, has made a good point in noting that "political trends come and go, but that's a time-honored word. It would be bowing to political correctness to change it."

But while maybe not in the majority of assistance cases, there are numerous instances where a negative connotation tied to the department's benefits is appropriate. That's in those cases where able-bodied people choose to collect benefits because they are lazy, or otherwise lack motivation to seek productive work.

It's a fact that generations of some families base their existence on welfare, without any attempt to better themselves and escape the damaging cycle of dependency.

Perhaps McIlvaine Smith's proposal shouldn't be relegated to the trash bin. However, it should be put on the shelf for a future time.