State lawmakers who used "unvouchered expenses" as a means for skirting a prohibition in the Pennsylvania Constitution against accepting a pay raise in the term it was approved shouldn't be rewarded for that sidestep by getting a more lucrative pension.

But apparently that is going to happen — at least for some lawmakers.

State taxpayers have grounds for a new round of fury commensurate with the outpouring of anger that followed the middle-of-the-night vote on July 7 that increased lawmakers' pay by 16 percent to 54 percent. The latest disclosure is further evidence of the arrogance that pervades the General Assembly — specifically, the what's-in-it-for-me mind-set that is gaining an increasingly stronger foothold in the House and Senate.

While the July 7 pay action was repealed about four months later as taxpayers' outcry began kindling fears about fallout in this year's legislative elections, apparently the taxpayers' message hasn't fully sunk in.

As a result, taxpayers have been dealt the message that the pay-raise issue still is alive, and, worse, that there is going to be a financial implication in terms of their wallets and pocketbooks.

Not all lawmakers are part of this latest affront — only those who accepted the unvouchered-expenses money and who, after the pay raise was repealed, did not return that "expense" money.

As an article in Monday's Butler Eagle reported, one of those benefiting the most will be Rep. Elinor Z. Taylor, R-Chester, who donated her unvouchered-expenses money to charity but who now is eligible for a yearly pension of about $97,000 when she retires in December. That is more than what she currently makes and $9,500 more than she would have received if she hadn't taken the money in question.

It has been estimated that 17 of the 26 other House and Senate members who will be leaving the state capital at the end of this year also will see bigger pensions because of the July 7 action and the sleazy maneuver that enabled lawmakers to receive more money immediately despite the state constitution's prohibition.

Pennsylvania's taxpayers are not out of line in asking questions such as the following:

• "If the extra money received after July 7 wasn't really a pay raise, just reimbursement for unvouchered expenses, how can those 'expenses' impact lawmakers' pension benefits?"

• "And, if the money lawmakers received can now be officially classified as an immediate salary increase in terms of benefiting their pensions, why aren't lawmakers who accepted the unvouchered-expenses money subject to legal ramifications, since the state constitution prohibits receiving higher pay immediately?"

On some fronts, the anger over last year's pay-raise vote, which was not announced prior to taking place, and which took place without debate and possibly outside the guidelines of proper legislative procedure, has been dissipating.

That is unfortunate, because the arrogant pay-raise attitude is sufficient grounds for a major throwing-out of incumbents this year in both the House and Senate.

Perhaps the news about the upcoming pension grab will revive some of the fervor of those who spoke out against lawmakers in the aftermath of July 7. That would be refreshing.

What occurred last July shouldn't provide a retirement benefit to any lawmaker, and state residents should get in touch with their representatives and senators to strongly convey that message.