EDITORIAL L.A. MYTH SHATTERED CITY'S BOAST OF ITS POLITICAL CLOUT IS JUST ANOTHER LIE.

MIGHTY in their own minds, the denizens of Los Angeles City Hall insist that if the Valley broke off from L.A., both would dwindle into political obscurity.

It's the ``clout'' argument, one of Mayor James Hahn's favorite claims in his war against Valley secession.

The clout argument holds that because Los Angeles is the second-largest city in America, it commands a special presence in Washington and Sacramento. That special presence, in turn, results in huge piles of state and federal cash that find their way into our local economy.

Or at least that's what City Hall's apologists say. Take away L.A.'s rallying cry - ``We're No. 2!'' - and the funds will dry up and disappear.

But there's just one problem with the clout argument:

It's a crock.

The hard evidence suggests that L.A.'s better at bragging than at performing.

A forthcoming study by Steven Frates of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government shows that Los Angeles' take of state and federal funds is not, per capita, any bigger than many of its much-smaller neighbors. The city ranks an unimpressive ninth out of the 88 cities in L.A. County in terms of federal funding, and it comes in fourth out of the state's seven largest cities.

With numbers like that, L.A.'s clout is just another lie being used by the power structure to avoid an honest debate on how to make this a greater city, or two greater cities if voters prefer it that way.

As Frates puts it, ``Los Angeles is remarkably ineffective in terms of its political power in Sacramento and in Washington, D.C.''

So much for the idea that bigger is necessarily better.

To be sure, there is such a thing as clout in legislative bodies, where elected officials join together to work for their constituents. But that assumes that political leaders have a commitment to their constituents in the first place, which is rarely the case in L.A., where the downtown power structure's first priority is itself.

The proof is in the numbers.

Size might be a factor, but it's hardly the only factor, or even the most important one. Quality of leadership matters far more.

Besides, were the Valley to secede, it's not as though it or the remaining Los Angeles would become politically insignificant. L.A. would still be the third-largest city in the country and the largest in the state, while the Valley would rank sixth nationally and second statewide.

In other words, there would still be plenty of strength in numbers.

The only difference is that in two smaller cities, where power is less centralized and elected officials are more accountable, that clout might actually be turned to uses that benefit the public.

In fact, two heavyweight cities working to bring more bacon back home could prove to be more effective than one. And on matters of regional concern, elected officials of both could continue working together.

Of course, that's all speculation.

But what's irrefutable is that L.A. is not the legislative powerhouse that its champions claim it is. The clout argument might make for an effective campaign scare tactic, but it's nothing more than a myth.

And now it's a shattered myth at that.