SECURITY OF INCOME SHOULD BE U.S. RIGHT.

Byline: ALLAN SHEAHEN local view

ON any given night in Los Angeles County, 90,000 people -- including 21,000 women and 15,000 children -- are homeless.

Now Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors propose spending some $329 million on shelters. That's $3,655 per person.

On Nov. 7, L.A. County voters narrowly defeated Measure H. The initiative would have provided $1 billion for services for the poor and homeless. That's $11,111 per person.

Why not just give every homeless person $3,655 in cash -- or $11,111 if we're feeling that generous -- and let the homeless find their own housing?

That idea comes from the late economist Milton Friedman, who died Nov. 16 at age 94.

Coming at the problem of poverty from a conservative point of view, Friedman was a lifelong champion of a negative income tax.

In his 1962 book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' he wrote, ``We should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax. It would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need.''

But Friedman's bold idea -- unanimously supported by a 1969 presidential commission, which included former California Gov. Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown -- never became law and has become politically unpopular.

Despite the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, 37 million Americans -- 12.6 percent of our population -- still live in poverty. Does anybody care?

Maybe we care, but we don't know what to do about it. So we shrug, say the poor will always be with us, and forget about it.

Rep. Bob Filner, D-Chula Vista, cares. He has introduced HR 5257, the ``Tax Cut for the Rest of Us Act,'' in Congress. The bill would transform the standard income-tax deduction into a standard tax credit of $2,000 per adult and $1,000 per child.

For the first time, it would give a ``refundable'' tax credit to every citizen who filed an income-tax return, even if the person had no income. It would not only simplify the tax code, it would put more money into pockets of poor Americans.

Transforming the standard deduction into a refundable tax credit would not eliminate homelessness and poverty, but it would be an enormous benefit to the poor who were completely overlooked by the Bush tax cuts.

Even Charles Murray, whose 1984 book, ``Losing Ground,'' claimed that welfare did more harm than good, now agrees with Friedman's approach.

``America's population is wealthier than any in history,'' Murray writes in his new book, ``In Our Hands.'' ``Yet we still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually. The solution is to give the money to the people.''

Murray calls for giving an annual cash grant of $10,000 -- with no work requirements -- to every adult over age 21.

Poverty and homelessness are wrong. A basic income guarantee would establish economic security as a universal right, and provide Friedman with a lasting legacy.

HR 5257 would be a good first step in that direction.