Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and state lawmakers have done it again: They've failed to approve a new state budget on time.

And, judging from the state's $3.2 billion budget deficit and the chasm that exists between the governor and Legislature on how to resolve that shortfall, it could be weeks before a budget agreement acceptable to both sides is fashioned.

The full impact on state employees and programs if the stalemate drags on for more than a few days is unclear at this point, but the seriousness of the situation portends a potentially painful experience.

State employees are being spared of severe financial consequences for the time being. It will not be until July 17 that those employees would actually miss a paycheck, since they will be paid on Friday for their two previous weeks of work.

Meanwhile, members of the Rendell administration and state legislators were due to get their monthly paycheck today. Therefore, they will have to wait for their next paycheck until a new 2009-10 budget gains approval.

Considering that Rendell and lawmakers failed to carry out their constitutional responsibility to pass a new budget by June 30, they should be required to lose pay and per diem expenses for the days until a new budget is passed. In the private workplace, workers don't get paid for not doing their work, and neither should these people.

It's not as if realization of the $3.2 billion deficit was thrust upon them at the last minute. Even as far back as October, it was apparent that the commonwealth was headed for a deep budget hole, but the two sides failed to work cooperatively to minimize it as the budget year continued, and the problem only worsened.

The past eight months have exhibited the state capital's politics-and-partisanship-as-usual and now a budget crisis that has the potential to consume much of the summer is facing the state.

The attitude of the voters should be: "It better not."

Rendell expressed a reasonable point on Monday that it's better "to get the budget done right than get it done on time."

Such thinking is acceptable if the missed deadline involves only several days and has little detrimental impact on state programs and operations. What's not acceptable is Rendell's response of "maybe" to the question of whether he thinks the budget impasse might extend beyond 60 days.

Again, Rendell and lawmakers knew long ago that there was a big problem that would have to be addressed.

State residents are justified in asking whatever happened to the obligation of state leaders to work together to solve such a problem before a crisis evolves. Are there really no statesmen in Pennsylvania government?

In case Rendell and lawmakers haven't checked a dictionary lately, "statesman" is defined as "a person who shows wisdom, skill, and vision in conducting state affairs and dealing with public issues."

The dictionary nowhere mentions skill at partisanship, inability to compromise, and a penchant for stymieing progress on important issues as qualifications for being called a statesman.

What's on the table then is Rendell's $28.8 billion spending plan, which is built on a three-year increase in the personal income tax to 3.57 percent from the current 3.07 percent (a 16 percent increase) and other tax changes, and Senate Republicans' alternative budget of $27.3 billion, which would make deep cuts in many state programs.

One immediately identifiable flaw in Rendell's tax proposal is that any change in the current personal income tax should be for one year only, not three years. Meanwhile, it would seem that the GOP budget plan is being overly optimistic that the budget shortfall can be resolved completely by the spending cuts they have proposed.

In some cases, such as the proposed furloughing of some state troopers, the negative impact of the move would be worse than paying a few extra dollars in taxes.

June 30 came and June 30 went. The 2009 version of Pennsylvania Budget Crisis has now officially begun.

The state government can't be blamed for the national recession that is at the heart of the state's budget woes. However, state leaders currently in office were elected because of the voters' confidence that they would represent state residents' best interests.

Inability to compromise before a crisis is at hand is not what the voters had in mind. Rendell and lawmakers must rethink their responsibility and obligation sooner rather than later.

The state's fiscal health and operations must not be held hostage and jeopardized because of politicians' jockeying for points in anticipation of next year's gubernatorial and legislative elections.