HARRISBURG -- Like people all over Pennsylvania, Charlie Gerow's friends are dumbfounded over how state legislators could be more than 100 days late in completing their most important job -- passing a new state budget.

"People just don't understand how the Legislature can have gone more than a quarter of the year without finishing this, and how Pennsylvania can be the only state in the nation without a budget," said the Republican political analyst. "They're upset and mystified."

Late last week, Gov. Ed Rendell and members of the Senate and House finally agreed on two major parts of the budget -- a spending package of $27.8 billion for fiscal 2009-10, which began July 1, and a revenue package to pay for it.

But another piece of the fiscal puzzle, a bill for table games at slots casinos, is still elusive. It's important because the budget relies on $200 million from allowing casinos to add poker, blackjack and roulette tables. Lawmakers will try to reach agreement on details of that plan this week.

A number of political and economic factors have fed into this monumental budgetary blowup, which has left many counties, school districts, child care agencies, senior citizen programs, drug and alcohol programs and nonprofit groups scraping for money, laying off workers and turning away clients.

There are some valid reasons for the fix the Legislature is in -- such as an unprecedented budget deficit of $3.2 billion on June 30 due to falling revenues from the ongoing recession, considered to be the worst economic slump since the Depression of the 1930s.

"You had a perfect political storm -- the huge deficit, an aggressive agenda by Gov. Rendell, 70 new legislators over the past two years who ran on a no-tax-hike pledge, and perhaps some diminution of the governor's power because he's a lame duck," said G. Terry Madonna, a professor and pollster from Franklin & Marshall College.

The recession caused sharp declines in the state's major money-makers, such as the sales tax, as people stopping buying things; the income tax, as people become unemployed or underemployed; and various business taxes, as corporations did less business and laid people off.

Of course, the other 49 states were dealing with the same economic conditions but managed to enact their budgets more or less on time.

Other factors in the budget impasse include:

• Different estimates of how long it will take the economy to recover.

Mr. Rendell is a liberal in many ways, but oddly, he turned quite conservative when forecasting growth in the state's economy between now and June 30. In fact, he forecast no growth in backbone revenues, such as the sales tax, income tax and corporate taxes, by June 2010. Last year the state received $25 billion from those sources and Mr. Rendell is forecasting the same $25 billion this year.

Senate Republicans, on the other hand, have projected a small increase in basic revenue, hoping jobs and sales will pick up in early 2010.

• Mr. Rendell's second term is growing shorter every day. Some legislators view him as a lame duck since he leaves office in January 2011. He has strongly resisted any characterization that he is losing effectiveness or clout, but some disagree.

"He is a lame duck but he doesn't think he's a lame duck," said Mr. Madonna. But unlike Mr. Rendell's early years as governor, the "other side" -- meaning Republicans and conservatives -- "are standing up to him," Mr. Madonna said. "Also, his approval rating [in polls] has dropped and legislators don't fear him anymore."

But in an interview Friday, Mr. Rendell insisted that talk of a lame duck status "had nothing to do with" the budget delay.

"If we'd had a $3.2 billion revenue shortfall in [2007], the year after I got re-elected with 61 percent of the vote, we would have had the same [problem] we had this year," he said.

This year, he said, "We faced very difficult choices in both what items to cut and what revenues to increase. It's been the biggest revenue loss since the Depression. Every choice was painful and legislators are very reluctant to absorb pain. There was a long protracted battle because of the amount of pain that had to be meted out."

• Differences in political ideology.

Some people think Mr. Rendell, who is a Democrat, misread the mood and political resolve of the low-key, conservative Republicans who run the Senate, such as President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi and Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman.

Unlike previous Republican leaders of the Senate and House, who were criticized by some conservatives in the party as "RINOs," or Republicans In Name Only, the current crop of Senate leaders is willing to stand firmer against increases in taxes and state spending.

On the other hand, Mr. Rendell has a strong commitment to certain programs, such as higher spending for basic education, health care for children and economic development programs to create and add jobs.

"Mr. Rendell is different from past governors," Mr. Madonna said. "In the past, governors in their seventh and eighth years pretty much walked away from the budget and let the legislators craft it. But he still has an aggressive agenda, especially regarding education."

Mr. Rendell initially proposed an increase of $418 million in basic education funding, which Republicans balked at because of the huge 2008-09 deficit.

Mr. Rendell insisted that some programs are worth fighting for, and improving public schools topped his list. He has said that one thing he regrets about his eight years as mayor of Philadelphia in the 1990s was not doing enough to improve city schools. He sees the recent reported improvement in public school test scores as vindication for his push for education funding.

Republicans said they had nothing against education but the state should trim its spending during the recession. They argued the state couldn't afford more education funding this year in light of the budget deficit. It took several months, but the two sides finally compromised on a $300 million increase for basic education, bringing the total to $5.5 billion.

Another basic clash of political and social opinions concerned the expansion of gambling by adding table games to casinos.

Looking just at the budget numbers, many legislators say the extra $200 million in gaming revenue is urgently needed. But socially conservative lawmakers detest more gambling and fear it will give gambling addicts more ways to lose money they can't afford.

• A misreading of the House Democratic caucus.

As a Democrat, Mr. Rendell naturally expects support from Democratic legislators, especially those in the state House, where Democrats have a 104-99 edge.

"While he misread the resolve of Senate Republicans over holding down spending and taxes, he also misread the House," said Mr. Gerow.

The so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats mainly from southwestern and central Pennsylvania, almost fell off their chairs when the governor proposed an increase in the personal income tax rate to help close the 2008-09 deficit and fund the 2009-10 budget.

"There was no appetite in the Legislature for tax increases, even among Democrats," Mr. Gerow said.

Democratic Reps. Nick Kotik of Robinson, Joe Markosek of Monroeville, Tony DeLuca of Penn Hills and others knew they would have risky re-election races next year if they voted for a higher income tax, and they told their House Democratic leaders so.

Finally, House Speaker Keith McCall and Majority Leader Todd Eachus knew the votes for the tax hike weren't there and had to annoy the governor by dropping the idea.

• The 2010 General Assembly elections.

House Republicans would love to regain control of the state House, which they held from 1995 to 2006. Democrats currently hold a 104-99 advantage. If the GOP can make a net gain of only three seats in 2010, they will be in control.

House GOP leader Sam Smith has been trying to paint House Democrats as in favor of various tax increases, such as a cigarette tax increase and continuation of a business tax. The vote to approve the tax bill was 102-96, with all but two Democrats in favor of the tax increases and all but one Republican opposed.

And don't forget the 2005 pay raise. All 203 members of the House and half of the 50-member Senate will face the voters in 2010. Still-painful memories of the debacle over the 2005 legislative pay raise, which later was rescinded, remain fresh in lawmakers' mind.

In the 2006 elections, more than 50 incumbent lawmakers lost their jobs -- forced to retire because of voter anger over their votes in favor of the raise, or else going down to defeat in the primary or general election. Another couple dozen new faces were elected in 2008.

Some legislators now are wondering if voter anger over the long-delayed budget will reach the levels of the pay-raise outrage.

"I don't think the loss of incumbents in 2010 will be as big as it was in 2006, but there will be some significant incumbent losses next year," said Mr. Gerow.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.