EDITORIAL\Tough but vital cuts\Supervisors acted responsibly in reducing relief payments.

OF course it was hard for Los Angeles County supervisors to slice general relief payments by 25 percent, from $285 a month to $212. Few people would relish the idea of cutting aid to those who live in transient hotels - or on the street.

And yet, it's important to keep the supervisors' responsible decision in some context, starting with the fact that general relief was never intended as a permanent entitlement program, but rather as a temporary helping hand. That the benefits were lowered to $212 in 1993 - until a state appellate court ruled otherwise - speaks to the program's fragility. It's been on the chopping block for some time.

And for good reason. The county faces an array of cutbacks in response to a massive budget shortfall. It already laid off nearly 3,000 employees, shut down enough jail space to house 10,000 prisoners, privatized six health clinics, and cut back or eliminated a range of other public services, including libraries and parks. (The general relief cut is expected to save $25 million in the current fiscal year and $53 million next year.)

If the county were given more flexibility from the state to raise additional revenue, it might not be faced with such a drastic shortfall. But that assumes a public willingness for a local tax hike - an unlikely scenario in our view.

Meanwhile, the board cannot spend money it doesn't have (any effort to deny that principle would be the sort of misguided thinking that helped to lay a foundation for the present crisis).

There's more to consider beyond dollars and cents. In recent months, advocates for the poor have argued that higher relief payments are a worthwhile investment in helping people escape from homelessness and dependency.

But about half the relief recipients are considered employable (probably for wages above $212 a month, or $53 a week). Even if the county were able to maintain a $285 benefit, would that serve to keep those "employable" folks on the public dole? And if so, why?

County government is not equipped to handle such misperceived entitlements - nor should it. During the board meeting on Tuesday, one of the homeless advocates said that his group would be monitoring each case of someone on relief who loses shelter or contracts tuberculosis or becomes a drug abuser - and that the supervisors will be to blame.

That's a ridiculous load to pin on county government, the safety net of last choice. But it's also a familiar liberal lament: Blame everyone but yourself.