Tourism Promotion Act
Senate one step closer to bill to promote US as tourism destination
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate Tuesday approved a procedural motion on legislation that would create an entity to promote the U.S. as a tourism destination abroad.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been a strong advocate of the legislation, which is perhaps not surprising as he faces a potentially tough re- election fight in Nevada, an economy hard hit by the downturn that relies on tourism for a significant chunk of its revenues.
The Tourism Promotion Authority would create a non-profit corporation to raise the profile of the U.S. overseas to compete for lucrative tourist dollars. The backers of the legislation said the U.S. would be playing catch-up with the many other countries that already have similar entities.
The corporation would be funded by a $10 fee on visitors from countries the federal government doesn't require to have a visa in order to visit the U.S.
Democratic lawmakers have said the bill would create tens of thousands of jobs and save the U.S. taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade in increased revenues stemming from greater tourist spending.
Reid was stymied back in June when he initially attempted to bring forward the legislation for a debate when lawmakers were unable to reach agreement on the number of amendments that would be allowed to be attached to the bill.
He has been a staunch defender of finding time on the crowded legislative calendar for the legislation despite the litany of pressing items the Senate has on its plate.
Reid is running for his fifth term representing Nevada in the Senate. Two recent polls have him slightly trailing possible Republican opponents in the contest next fall.
Comments
The move to re-establish a national government tourism marketing body in the United states should be warmly welcomed as correcting a major error made by the Clinton Administration in 1996 to close the USTTA.
However there seems something rather unseemly and grubby in expecting foreign tourists to fully fund the US government's attempt to market destination USA to non Americans.
As an Australian I accept that as a taxpayer, a portion of my tax should rightly go to fund Tourism Australia to market my country to the rest of the world. I would have thought that Americans would be equally willing for a portion of their taxes to fund a body to market their magnificent country to the world. After all, American taxpayers are being lumbered with paying for bank bailoutss and the bailout of failed Detrot car companies which are unlikely to give any short term benefit to the avareage American . Tourism on the other hand promisess vast benefits for mmillions of Americans.
If we assume that about 40 million tourists visit the USA per annum this should mean that foreign tourists will be funding the US government about
US $400 million to, market America to the world. In other words those people
who make decision to visit the USA are
paying for the US government to market destination USA.
If the USA was a poverty stricken developing country this policy would make moral and ethical sense. However,
despite its current eceonomic problems
the USA is far from a beggar economy.
If the $10 visa charge was directed to cover security costs related to travel in the USA it may be more palatable but
charging foriegn visitors to pay for national tourism marketing verges on the obscene not because of the amount involved but because of the principal that foreigners and not Americans are expected to bear the entire cost for the US government to promote the USA as a tourist destination.
To put it simply, If Americans don't feel it worthwhile to bear the cost of promoting their own country, why the heck should I and millions on non American visitors do so. My government does not impose a charge on foreigners to fund the promotion of Australia and as a tourism professional I would bitterly oppose them trying to do so as I would see it as an unnecceary impost in tourism.
I sincerely hope than American tourism professionals loudly oppose this sham.
Post new comment