At a time when state government again is anticipating a budget shortfall of several hundred million dollars, the Pennsylvania General Assembly continues to cling to its nearly $200 million reserve fund, to the detriment of commonwealth needs and programs.

It’s something that’s nearly unheard of in other states, and there ought to be a law against it.

Trouble is, the Legislature would have to pass any law forbidding what some liken to a slush fund. Willingness to vote in favor of giving up the surplus should be one of the issues posed to legislative candidates at election time — an opportunity that will exist this fall.

While the special fund, which the Legislature justifies as an insurance policy for a budget stalemate with a governor, apparently is not as large as when it peaked at $215 million on June 30, 2006, it’s still unconscionable that that money — taxpayers’ money — isn’t being directed to more pressing needs.

The surplus has been accumulating since the early 1980s, and an audit for the fiscal year ending last June 30 found the fund totaling nearly $184 million.

The fund is indicative of a legislative body hellbent on protecting its own interests, not necessarily the best interests of the people who elected them.

The taxpayer outrage triggered by lawmakers’ July 2005 middle-of-the-night pay raise vote — raises that were repealed months later because of voter presure — should have also forced action to dissolve the fund, the existence of which only was divulged to the public at about that time.

But the Legislature continues to hold onto the money, although lawmakers pride themselves over their recent generosity in committing $50 million to an accountability block grant program for public schools.

It’s appropriate to note that the money being allocated is other people’s money, not lawmakers’. So, the Legislature has no grounds to brag about its generosity.

The money, if well spent by the schools, will be much better in their hands than remaining in the possession of self-serving politicians.

State residents also need to know that lawmakers controlling the fund have made unpublicized spending decisions not associated with any governor-Legislature budget stalemate, and that’s not the way state government should operate.

For years, auditors have recommended — and the General Assembly has ignored — recommendations establishing a cap for the surplus and a system for monitoring the fund.

With all the negative news that has enveloped the Legislature in recent years, taxpayers deserved to hear news that the General Assembly was changing the way it does business, including doing away with a significant amount of the partisanship that stymies legislative progress.

No such luck. Lawmakers are resistant to the kind of positive change that’s necessary, including getting rid of the fund.

In looking ahead to the Nov. 6 general election, state voters need to impress on lawmakers their dissatisfaction over the fund, as well as other General Assembly practices that disregard the state’s well-being.

Outrage over the 2005 pay raise was successful in prematurely — but deservedly — ending the careers of some lawmakers. If the current attitude persists, General Election 2012 should claim a number of other incumbents, especially the leaders who reject any notion of releasing for general use money that was paid by the taxpayers for the state’s — not law- makers’ — needs.