There's no mystery about the intent of Pennsylvania's Rainy Day Fund. Its purpose is to help the commonwealth weather rough economic times — when incoming revenue falls short of the amount of money the state government needs to operate.

It wasn't established with the intent of being a pot of gold for lawmakers' whims at budget time or any other time. But that unintended scenario is in danger of happening as the current budget year winds down toward its end at midnight Monday.

Lawmakers in Harrisburg, with just over four days to complete their budget work, if the state is to retain its spending authority without interruption, are considering proposals that would use $250 million or more of the $750 million Rainy Day account for budget-related spending.

Unless lawmakers can document projected incoming revenue that is significantly less than what was needed to run the state during the 2007-08 fiscal year, tapping the Rainy Day Fund simply to provide extra-spending capability for 2008-09 is shortsighted and unacceptable.

House Democratic leader Bill DeWeese of Waynesburg said a part of the Rainy Day money would be targeted for education — most state residents are content with the basic premise that allocating money for education is a good investment.

But state taxpayers are justified in asking why the state doesn't have enough money to meet its education responsibility without resorting to the emergency money.

Still, earlier this month, House Democrats were talking about withdrawing virtually all of the Rainy Day money and using some of that money to help state residents weather high gasoline prices, avoid mortgage problems and cope with other economic difficulties.

"It is a rainy day in Pennsylvania," proclaimed House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia.

But House Minority Leader Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, was correct in his warning that Evans' proposal would trigger a spending free-for-all, and that expanding government programs with a one-time revenue source would require more taxes in the future.

He also rightly questioned the need for it, all considered.

Throughout his years as the state's chief executive, Gov. Ed Rendell has boasted about the savings his administration has implemented and how incoming revenues have provided a financial cushion for the commonwealth.

Lawmakers now seem to be ignoring the existence of any cushion.

The discussion about draining some or all of the Rainy Day Fund at this time in a spirit of generosity seems to be more geared toward improving lawmakers' reelection prospects than of addressing a genuine crisis.

The state's economy isn't as vibrant as Rendell and lawmakers would like it to be, but it's not yet mired in a crisis in which dipping into the Rainy Day Fund would seem to be the only alternative to a hefty tax increase to balance the budget.

State taxpayers should watch the unfolding situation in the state capital closely. A stupid, shortsighted decision regarding the Rainy Day Fund now could portend unnecessary tax challenges for state residents in the not-very-distant future, if the economic downturn worsens.

Using the Rainy Day Fund for anything but its intended use is bad policy that must be avoided.