Pennsylvania residents with credit problems need a friend like state House Speaker John Perzel to try to extract them from their financial difficulties.

During a public television program the other day, Perzel defended last year's excessive legislative pay raise — which ultimately was repealed in response to voter outrage — by pointing out that some lawmakers were having financial problems.

"We have roughtly 30-some members (of the legislature) who can't apply for a credit card because their credit's so bad," said Perzel, who later labeled the information "anecdotal."

In a further defense of the raise, he told the television audience that tattoo artists in Philadelphia make more money than lawmakers.

So it was at least in part a gesture of loyalty and concern that Perzel strongly advocated substantially higher pay for the lawmakers with less-than-perfect credit — and all of his other legislative colleagues, and himself—by using taxpayers' money.

But most state taxpayers don't have a John Perzel voting for a pay raise for them.

It's troubling that, throughout the pay-raise debacle, Perzel was much less concerned about the taxpayers who might be having difficulty making ends meet than about people who project the image of being experts in the management of government and the fiscal responsibilities that go along with it.

Excuse most state residents' lack of sympathy for any financial plight lawmakers might be having, especially those who have brought on their plight via excessive spending.

It's safe to say most state residents aren't blessed with lawmakers' base pay of more than $72,000 and automatic annual raises, and don't get a $650-a-month car lease, generous per diems, full health coverage, future pension benefits about equal to their current work pay, plus other benefits.

All considered, state lawmakers have no justification for complaining to taxpayers about their personal financial difficulties.

Lawmakers were aware of the pay, benefits and responsibilities associated with their offices at the time they launched their first campaign. No one forced them to serve, and no one is demanding that they continue to serve.

As of last November, only three states — Michigan, New York and California — paid their legislators more than the Keystone State.

So, if Pennsylvania's legislators can't live on the generous pay and excellent fringe benefits they receive, they should opt to return to the private sector to seek better options.

It's doubtful many taxpayers will miss them, especially in the aftermath of the pay-raise debacle and other uncomplimentary aspects of lawmakers' performance uncovered after the 2005 pay-raise vote.

As for Perzel, he has the Robin Hood tale twisted. Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor; Perzel advocates taking from the poor and giving to those who should be much better off financially.

His unwarranted concern about lawmakers' credit problems and his exaggerations about tattoo artists' pay — that pay is much lower than what Perzel suggests — are proof that Perzel has lost touch with real life in today's Pennsylvania. Perhaps voters should give Perzel the opportunity, by way of a defeat in the November election, the chance to experience real life once again.