Children’s Advocacy Groups Blast Wilson’s Plan : Reaction: They say billions could be saved by eliminating deductions for yachts, corporations and other ‘luxury loopholes.’

Crying “tots, not yachts,” a statewide coalition of 50 children’s advocacy groups argued Thursday that California’s education budget is being strained by gaping tax loopholes--not welfare checks, as Gov. Pete Wilson said in his State of the State address.

Standing in front of a Marina del Rey yacht harbor, advocates made an impassioned pitch to fundamentally alter state priorities by leaving welfare budgets intact and eliminating “luxury loopholes” enjoyed by yacht owners, executives and multinational corporations.

“We have identified billions of dollars of loophole-closers that would not increase taxes for ordinary families or most taxpayers,” said Gloria Blackwell, president of the California State Parent-Teacher Assn. “Before we cut welfare payments for kids and seniors, we need to cut country club dues, Hawaii vacations and luxury boxes at sporting events.”

Eliminating tax deductions for luxury boxes at stadiums, greens fees, country club dues, theater tickets and other forms of executive entertainment could save $150 million, said Lenny Goldberg, a public interest lobbyist with the California Tax Reform Assn., which joined forces with the children’s advocates. He estimated that taxpayers underwrite $60 million a year in interest payments on yachts.

The California Children’s Roundtable, a year-old statewide association representing organizations in education, health, welfare and other children’s services, held its news conference as Wilson’s 1992-93 budget landed on legislators’ desks in Sacramento.

Wilson, trying to cope with a predicted $6-billion shortfall in the state budget over the next 18 months, proposed cuts of 10% to 25% in the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program. Such cuts, he said, would save $600 million in 1992-93.

Wilson said in his address that he singled out welfare because there is a “growing competition for funds between education and public assistance.”

It was that premise that was challenged by children’s advocates.

“Cutting Aid to Families With Dependent Children to finance education is ludicrous,” said Nancy Gardner, executive director of the California Assn. of Children’s Homes. “How can you educate starving kids? The governor is not looking at the whole child.”

“The proposal to reduce AFDC in order to protect education funding falsely and cynically suggests that AFDC recipients and school children are separate, competing interests,” said James Steyer, president of Children Now. “Seventy percent of AFDC recipients are children. In many California school districts, more than one-third of the students receive AFDC.”

Steyer and others were particularly incensed at Wilson’s call to reduce AFDC payments from 10% to 25% if an able-bodied parent has not found a job in six months. Virtually all AFDC recipients are single mothers, they pointed out, and Wilson offered no new day-care programs or suggestions as to how the women will find jobs in a recession.

The coalition also accused Wilson of ignoring his own call last year to “adopt a vision of government that is preventive, rather than remedial.” Several predicted that the cuts called for in Wilson’s budget will increase long-term spending by government.

Specifically, they said, children cut off from welfare checks will wind up in foster care, which is far more expensive. In turn, they said, children who spend time in institutions, including foster care programs, are more likely to become criminals--raising law enforcement and incarceration costs.

“Our country keeps doing this, making short-term cost cutting that leads to long-term expense,” said Robert Ketch, executive director of Five Ares, a children’s agency. “Do you know how many children I’ve seen put into foster care because their mothers couldn’t care for them on $650 a month? And foster care costs $700 a month, and up to $8,000 a month in some private agencies.”

While coalition members differed in their approaches to budget cutting, all insisted that children’s programs need not be cut to make up the shortfall. The groups said increased enforcement of child support payments could raise $2.5 billion. Other means of raising revenue suggested were rewriting tax laws involving multinational corporations, stock sales and oil investments.

The unity displayed Thursday was a significant departure from years past when children’s advocates privately fought each other for funds.

Several advocates said they attended because they have grown increasingly desperate watching children slide into a poverty that debilitates and punishes them for wider social conditions.

Ellen Zaman, director of allied health services at Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles, said she felt compelled to attend after watching children being prescribed medicines they cannot afford and being carried home by parents too poor to afford bus fare.

“We’re all getting the ax--everybody’s programs are,” said Steyer. “Finally, we just decided once and for all that we had to start responding with one voice.”