Pennsylvania finally has a 2025-26 state budget — a $50.1 billion behemoth approved Nov. 12, the Legislature having missed the constitutionally mandated budget-preparation deadline of June 30 by almost 4.5 months.

State taxpayers, who usually are quick to forget the frustrations and hardships tied to budget stalemates like the one just ended, probably already have shifted their attention totally away from what just occurred.

They likely will remember even less about the unconscionable, maddening stalemate by the time for them to vote next year.

Next year’s elections will decide who will represent them in Harrisburg for the following two or four years. It is important that voters remember that Election Day is when they always should be assessing — or already should have assessed — their elected officials’ performance.

Unfortunately, most voters will not recall many of the relevant facts about this year’s budget debacle — or the individuals responsible for it –when they are making their 2026 ballot decisions.

That’s troubling — and potentially unproductive — in terms of state business.

It must be kept in mind that most Pennsylvania lawmakers will be up for re-election next year. While this editorial is not intended to judge which incumbents should be retained or defeated, the intention is nevertheless to remind voters, even at this early date, about next year’s important responsibility.

Regarding the just-ended stalemate and the new 2025-26 spending package, there is one important question that has not been addressed – at least not clearly enough for most taxpayers to discern.

That question revolves around whether the results that emanated from the stalemate justified the stalemate at all, its length and the hardships for which the stalemate was responsible.

It’s difficult to believe that the results did warrant the stalemate situation, considering all of the financial misery that counties, school districts, social service agencies and anyone else had to endure for such a long time prior to the budget ratification.

Regardless, though, it is clear that the General Assembly needs to get serious about its budget responsibility earlier in the year than it traditionally has done. Also, it needs to streamline the gathering of important information dealing with all budget categories, rather than continuing to be bogged down with the various hearings in which it currently engages.

Computers make that possible.

Face-to-face meetings should be necessary only to address important questions arising from the printed information submitted by department leaders.

All considered, Pennsylvania might even be better served by a two-year budget, freeing up lawmakers for other important legislative tasks. However, that will never happen, with a legislature hellbent on keeping intact its full-time status.

Then there is the matter of the lawmakers themselves:

With the responsibility to ratify a budget by June 30, lawmakers should be entitled to no recesses or other off-time if they can’t complete their work by that date. There are Pennsylvania residents, rightly or wrongly, who believe that, if necessary, lawmakers should lock themselves in the legislative chambers and not leave until they achieve the needed agreements.

Some Keystone State residents also believe lawmakers should lose pay permanently for days when they must report to Harrisburg for budget-related work after the June 30 deadline has been missed.

It’s abundantly clear that Pennsylvania’s budget process needs an overhaul.