Last week's Question of the Week asked whether the state should set money aside in a savings account, or rainy-day fund. More than three out of four readers said, yes.

Among 436 responses to this unscientific survey, 339 liked the idea, while 97 did not.

Some readers' comments:

n It is a prudent idea when access to the fund is only allowed after some level of budget reductions has been taken and it must be appropriated by the Legislature. If access is too easy, it encourages reckless budgeting and weak expenditure control.

n That is a no-brainer. Budgets are cyclical and the peaks need to fill the troughs.

n Our current governor and Legislature are not noted for fiscal responsibility, so if we have a rainy day fund from the over-taxation, at least they won't just be throwing the money away this year.

n What, another rainy-day fund? How many rainy day funds does the state have to have? How much more greedy does the state Legislature and the governor have to be with the taxpayers' money?

n We should pay off or down local government and local school district debt, and we should repair or build infrastructure now that avoids higher public costs to taxpayers in the future. This is what a business or family would do.