What People Think
 |
 |
38% For, 62% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1661, The Travel Promotion Act of 2007
You must be logged in to your WashingtonWatch.com account in order to edit this wiki page.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
Don't have an account? Register for your free account now!
Cost per :
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_SN_1661.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Mia
The travel and tourism industries should pay for this. The hotels, airlines and other businesses have lobbyists and trade goups that can pay for this. Taxpayers don't need to foot the whole bill.
Peter
I don't understand the comment about taxpayers footing the bill or the analysis indicating the cost to American families. As I read the bill, the promotion program would be paid for by a fee levied on foreign travelers to the United States. It doesn't look like the taxpayer pays anything at all.
Telly
I read the analysis (linked above) and it talks about where the money comes from: "borrowed from the Treasury, assessments on private firms operating in the travel industry, and new fees charged to users of the visa waiver program." Some of those are foreign travelers, but the rest are taxpayers and U.S. companies. Spending this money takes away from other priorities. I'm with Mia on this.
Charles
Either we give Homeland Security a ton of taxpayer money to explain their policies or try this non-profit using private sector expertise.
Jennifer
From the line Telly quoted it seems clear that this is to be funded by the U.S. travel industry and foreign travelers using the visa waiver program--not American tax dollars. Other countries charge inbound travelers, including Americans, a fee to enter or exit--or both. Why are we so far behind in global competitiveness?
Telly
Last time I checked, the U.S. travel industry was made up of American taxpayers. You think that those taxes aren't passed on to American consumers? And you must realize that taxing foreign visitors just reduces the money they have to spend here, as well as pushing them to other destinations. I'd never heard before that higher taxes and fees are part of "global competitiveness"!
David
It looks like the fee is only $10 per traveler. Do you really think that's going to have a big impact on their spending or on their decision to come in the first place? The fee would fund travel promotion, which ought to result in more foreign visitors, not fewer.
Jon
This bill actually sounds like a good idea. I noticed that a lot of House Republican Study Committee members have cosponsored the bill. This looks like something conservatives can support.
Telly
Riiiight. Like Republicans have been reliable about limited government the last few years. $10 per traveler is a lot for a whole family, combined with all the other burdens on visitors to this country. This kind of nickel-and-diming is what's got the government so oversized in the first place. Why on earth should the federal government have anything to do with travel and tourism? If this is an appropriate for the federal government, is anything out of bounds?
Chad
Isn't part of the issue, though, finding a way to counteract the unintended consequences of our new security regime? I think that was a point made in one of the comments above: don't weaken security, but do something to counter the negative impressions that are driving foreign travelers away. The scheme outlined in the bill may be a better choice than asking DHS to to it.
Jon
Telly makes a fair point. Seeing Rep. Mike Pence on the bill makes me take a second look, however. He's got staff who take a cold, hard look at legislative from a fiscally conservative outlook. A lot of conservatives, whose opinions I respect, have signed on to the bill. There must be a reason they're backing this.
Jeff
Roy Blunt is on there too, although he's not averse to pork. It makes me wonder what's going on here. What is it that these guys see as beneficial in this legislation? Indiana and Missouri don't seem like big international tourist destinations.
Bruce
Anheuser-Busch's Chairman is on Discover America Partnership's leadership committee. A-B's HQ's is in St. Louis, Missouri, and swings much weight. Indiana's top companies include several in transportation business, allies with tourism industry, which through all its connections is pushing for this bill as a free ride on tourism promotion, instead of using their own ample profits from this $1 trillion industry. It's pork, plain and simple.
Mark
According to the Commerce Department, foreign visitors spent nearly $108 billion while visiting the United States in 2006; when combined with domestic travel and tourism-related spending, that figure jumps to more than $1.2 trillion. Despite these record revenues generated by the U.S. travel and tourism industry, the industry, represented by the Discover America Partnership under the leadership of Disney and other corporate powerhouses, has the audacity to ask the American taxpayer to fund their marketing campaigns to the tune of $200-$300 million. This is nothing short of corporate welfare for a trillion dollar industry that could, and should, fund their own ads...much like they did when Disney shot the "Welcome: Portraits of America" video that showcased Canada and its landmarks (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/BUSINESS/110300044/1006).
We do have a travel and tourism crisis on our hands; industry leaders are marketing the wrong country while bashing their own.
Dave
U.S. industry leaders bashing the United States? Mark, what are you talking about?