Leverage often is the key to success in any negotiation. And Gov. Ed Rendell believes that forcing state workers to go without paychecks is effective leverage in putting pressure on state lawmakers to reach a budget agreement, and give in to his proposal for increasing taxes to balance the state budget.

Rendell says he has no choice, based on his interpretation of a Commonwealth Court ruling. But others are challenging the legality of using state workers as pawns in budget negotiations. And that raises doubts about the necessity of some 44,000 state employees having to work without pay, which can cause real hardships for some, including higher interest fees for increased borrowing and even home foreclosure or bankruptcy in extreme cases.

Rendell's position is being questioned by Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, who says Rendell is interpreting the Commonwealth Court ruling incorrectly regarding pay for state workers during a budget crisis.

Rendell argues that federal law requiring payment for work is trumped by the state constitution's ban on any payments being made without budget authority.

Scarnati said he is pleased that the state Supreme Court will review the Commonwealth Court ruling, and he is urging that the court review be done as soon as possible.

There is a certain irony to Rendell claiming that state workers cannot be paid because of the state constitution. It's worth noting that he and state lawmakers violated the state constitution by failing to have a budget in place by July 1.

It's also worth remembering that Rendell didn't mention constitutional concerns over the legislative pay raise of 2005, though how the bill was brought to a vote clearly violated constitutional provisions.

Rendell also said nothing when state lawmakers began boosting their pay soon after the pay-raise vote by adding bogus expenses equal to their expected pay raise under the guise of unvouchered expenses. Yet, when it comes to paying state workers during a budget standoff, Rendell is embracing strict adherence to the state constitution.

Taking away the public relations impact and human drama of state workers going unpaid would give the two competing sides more time to work on and pass a reasonable state budget. Of course, pressure might not have reached a boiling point if Rendell and lawmakers had gotten serious about finding a budget compromise early in the year instead of waiting until mid-June.

The current budget crisis was predicted as early as last fall. It did not come as a surprise to anyone.

Instead of working out an agreement earlier this year, Rendell apparently expects the drama of tens of thousands of state workers facing financial struggles, even risking losing their homes, to apply more pressure on his political foes in hopes of getting his version of a budget — one featuring a significant increase to the personal income tax — passed.

If state workers were being paid under some sort of stopgap budget agreement, then the General Assembly and the governor could argue for months over a budget — and public rejection of any tax increase likely would grow stronger.

In early 2004, Rendell diverted $400 million in federal highway funds to financially ailing public transit systems in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Given that creativity, if the governor wanted state workers to be getting paychecks now, they would be.

Over the past month or so, voters have witnessed the familiar Harrisburg budget scene: partisan squabbles, scare tactics, gimmicks and gamesmanship. No wonder a Quinnipiac University poll showed Rendell's approval rating at 39 percent, an all-time low, and approval for the Legislature at 27 percent, just one percentage point above the all-time low reached following the controversial 2005 pay-raise vote.