Vote on Travel Promotion Act Imminent

[JBloggs]

Earlier in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security began requiring visitors from Visa Waiver countries (again - those who do NOT pay the $131) to go online and fill out an ESTA form (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) before flying to the US. It is basically a security measure. Click here for details. If the Travel Promotion Act passes, the online form will also be the place where you pay the $10. Approval occurs when your passport info is double-checked against a list of flyers being watched by DHS. Apparently the process is electronic and almost instantaneous - to the adminstrative burden would theoretically be light.
I'm not sure exactly how the fee will be explained on the ESTA application web site, but here is a list of what the bill is supposed to make happen:
• Provide info on entry requirements, required documentation, fees, and processes, and declared public health emergencies to prospective travelers, travel agents, tour operators, meeting planners, foreign governments, travel media and other international stakeholders;
• Counter misperceptions regarding U.S. travel policy around the world;
• Promote increased travel to the U.S. through advertising, outreach to trade shows, and other appropriate promotional activities;
• Ensure benefits extend to rural and urban areas equally including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.
• Give priority to populations most likely to visit the U.S.
Apparently, the ESTA process is only applicable to those getting on an airplane to the US. And Canada and Mexico are NOT part of the Visa Waiver program. I assume once your ESTA has been approved and that data linked to your passport number, you're set for 2 years.
I understand the argument of "what's in it for me?" with regard to the visitor paying the $10. Many taxpayers ask the same question, whether it's property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, toll roads, etc. And of course not all answers are agreeable. If I don't have school-aged kids, but still have to pay $12,000 per year property taxes that mostly go to support the local school system, I might be more upset than the neighbor who has 4 kids in the public schools. Much of what I pay in federal income tax doesn't benefit me personally. Do your visitors ask how does your occupancy tax benefit them? Do some not come because of the occupancy taxes? Adding fees for entry would restrict inbound travel like occupancy taxes restrict travel. In the grand scheme of things, in my humble opinion, they are negligible. I don't cancel plans to rent a car when I see the fees add up to about 50% of the total charge. I don't cancel my stay at a B&B when I hear the occupancy taxes are 11%. I don't think anyone would cancel plans to come to America due to a $10 fee that covers them for 2 years.
I'm not sure why it was chosen that only Visa Waiver nationals must pay the fee and not ALL visitors. Maybe they were concerned that raising $131 to $141 would rock the boat too much. Hopefully, on account of the TPA working as hoped, the visitor will encounter a more robust, healthier tourism industry on account of the resurgence of inbound travel. Maybe that's the "what's in it for me?" Amusement parks that stay open, because they can staff the parks. I know some innkeepers who would agree that a 5% bump in occupancy at their inns could mean the difference between staying in business and taking down the shingle.
My opinion is that the $10 fee is very, very light and will not be an issue. Will it be a lead balloon with some? Probably. But will it inhibit travel that otherwise would have happened? Doubt it.
No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes..

No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes.

I'll just have to say, Jay, that you're losing my already lukewarm support altogether with that last paragraph.
I believe it's a false argument to say it's either impose a $10 fee or accept sagging tourism. I believe there are, indeed, other means to accomplish the same goal.
And I do not say that for the political reasons that you're describing. I say that from the practical perspective of what will work best and what will, at the same time, not create any badwill among potential visitors.
I think we all have the right to our opinions and if anyone doesn't support this for any reason, well, I'd like to see folks okay with that. Including you. They don't need to have a political standpoint to disagree with the means of increasing tourism.
I personally don't react well to those sort of assumptions. And I don't think I'm alone in that.
.

My intent was not to portray it as either you are for us or you're against us...or you support the $10 fee or live with a sagging travel economy, because I know the $10 fee is not a guaranteed cure-all. I wasn't making the argument - I was posing a question that I think is a legitimate way of examining the bill and what it hopes to accomplish.
This isn't the first and only idea to come to the table. Maybe I should have said that the travel industry (through the former Travel Industry Association, now called the US Travel Association) for years and years could not figure out how to collectively and effectively market America as a destination through other means. They tried launching and supporting programs, such as www.discoveramerica.com. There's never been the large-scale funding needed to make it work. It doesn't mean better ideas don't exist, but none have won the general support of the travel industry leadership like this one has, and the travel industry has to provide matching resources under this law.
Internal opposition to the bill has primarily focused on the opinion that it's not the federal government's role to promote America - let the private interests within the country bear the cost of promoting inbound travel. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been the most vocal. And I'm perfectly ok with that argument. Everyone probably draws a line in the sand in their own minds with regard to what the federal government should and should not engage in. I think this is one case where a public-private partnership makes good sense, even though I too am warm (not red hot) on the whole concept.
But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.
.

But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.

Understood.
But my point is that you'll garner more support by being open to the myriad of reasons for opposition rather than only understanding opposition based on political ideology.
Not to mention the fact that the same folks who could never agree on implementation of this idea privately would be likely candidates to serve on the nonprofit. Why will they be more successful now?
I believe, BTW, that it is absolutely in all of our best interests for the government to be involved in promoting tourism abroad. And when I say all of us, I mean all of us Americans, not only all of us innkeepers.
I am not at all convinced, though, that this is the appropriate vehicle for that. Or that the nonprofit formed will be successful in accomplishing its goals.
.

I'm not sure it's a matter of the travel industry leadership not agreeing on how a campaign could be implemented...I think they couldn't figure out how to fund it. The TPA is their best solution to that problem.
I'd love to hear other forms of opposition to the bill - you bet! I am open-minded to them. Can you tell I love debate? My opinion too can be swayed. Here are reasons for opposition that I've heard so far:

• The $10 fee will or could inhibit travel
• The $10 fee will only cause Visa Waiver countries to in turn impose more fees on US travelers
• The federal government has no business doing this

All are valid arguments, concerns or reasons to oppose it.
And then there's the argument that even a well-funded, well-executed campaign will not be enough to increase inbound travel. But, that's a hypothetical...just like it's hypothetical that it WILL increase inbound travel. In the end, it's a gamble. One that I'm willing to bet the visitor's ten bucks on.
.

Who needs an international travel campaign when we have Jerry Springer and the news. -UGH- Sorry I just had to add that sorry bit of info.
Countries around the world see the USA on every channel every day/night. Sure it would be nice to portray Yanks in a good light, but why spoil all their fun. They either want to come here and visit Disneyland, NYC and Hollywood or they don't. I truly wish we could portray ourselves better, we are not all like they see on TV (except we all do have big bright white smiles with straight teeth)

 

[Innkeeper To Go]

Come visit the U.S. - and create jobs![/h1]By Tami Luhby, senior writerFebruary 25, 2010: 3:48 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Next up on the Senate's jobs-creation agenda: Lure more foreign travelers to the United States.
Lawmakers are set to vote next week on the Travel Promotion Act, which would create a nonprofit corporation to market overseas visits to United States. The venture would be funded by a $10 fee on foreign travelers and up to $100 million from the tourism industry.
America is one of the few developed countries that doesn't market itself abroad, according to industry experts, though states, resorts, hotel chains and attractions certainly promote themselves.
Marketing campaigns funded by the act could attract an additional 1.6 million international visitors a year, generating $4 billion in spending and creating 40,000 jobs, according to consulting firm Oxford Economics, which has conducted research on behalf of the U.S. Travel Association, a trade group.
"We're the only modern nation that doesn't advertise ourselves," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on Monday as he laid out his plan to spur employment. "Every state in the union, their No. 1 or No. 2 ... economic driver is tourism."
The act would create a public-private venture, similar to a state or city visitors' bureau, that would be run by an 11-member board of industry representatives appointed by the Commerce Secretary.
The $10 fee would be charged only to those visiting from the 35 countries that don't need visas to enter the United States. These include most European countries, as well as Japan, Australia and South Korea.
The fee, which would be charged only once every two years, would be collected when these travelers apply for pre-authorization to come to the United States.
In addition to marketing America as a destination, the venture would provide information on entry requirements and counter misperceptions of the nation's travel policies, according to the legislation. Its operations would be reviewed by the Commerce Secretary, the U.S. Comptroller General and Congress.
Bipartisan support
Co-sponsored by Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the bill already passed the House of Representatives and enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is also expected to be approved. President Obama touted it in a visit to tourism-dependent Nevada earlier this month.
Eager to give their tourism industries a boost, state and local officials have praised the effort. It has 53 co-sponsors in the Senate.
But not everyone has gotten on board. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said creating what he called a "government tourism advertising agency" is unnecessary.
"The American travel industry already spends billions every year on advertising with tens of millions focused on international marketing," he wrote in an op-ed piece. "The purpose of the Travel Promotion Act is to subsidize that advertising."
The U.S. Travel Association said that foreign visitors view America's visa and entry process as difficult and unwelcoming. In its view, an advertising campaign to counter that perception will only succeed if it comes with government backing.
Though surveys show that many foreigners view the United States as a desirable place to vacation, fewer are coming here, said Adam Sacks, managing director of Tourism Economics, a subsidiary of Oxford Economics.
"When it comes down to decisions, there are a lot of other destinations that are top of mind," Sacks said.
Overseas travel to the U.S. is down 9% since 2000, said Roger Dow, the travel association's chief executive.
That has hurt the labor-intensive tourism sector, which has lost 441,000 jobs in the last decade, he said. One in eight Americans benefits from the travel industry, the association estimates, either by working directly for a hotel, rental car agency or the like or by being on the payroll of a supplier, such as a taxi service.
"If more people come to the U.S., more Americans work," Dow said.

The bill comes on the heels of a $15 billion jobs measure passed Wednesday by the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader said he plans to introduce a string of employment initiatives in coming days.
from CCMONEY HERE.

Thanks for the link, JB!

 

[Innkeeper To Go]

Earlier in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security began requiring visitors from Visa Waiver countries (again - those who do NOT pay the $131) to go online and fill out an ESTA form (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) before flying to the US. It is basically a security measure. Click here for details. If the Travel Promotion Act passes, the online form will also be the place where you pay the $10. Approval occurs when your passport info is double-checked against a list of flyers being watched by DHS. Apparently the process is electronic and almost instantaneous - to the adminstrative burden would theoretically be light.
I'm not sure exactly how the fee will be explained on the ESTA application web site, but here is a list of what the bill is supposed to make happen:
• Provide info on entry requirements, required documentation, fees, and processes, and declared public health emergencies to prospective travelers, travel agents, tour operators, meeting planners, foreign governments, travel media and other international stakeholders;
• Counter misperceptions regarding U.S. travel policy around the world;
• Promote increased travel to the U.S. through advertising, outreach to trade shows, and other appropriate promotional activities;
• Ensure benefits extend to rural and urban areas equally including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.
• Give priority to populations most likely to visit the U.S.
Apparently, the ESTA process is only applicable to those getting on an airplane to the US. And Canada and Mexico are NOT part of the Visa Waiver program. I assume once your ESTA has been approved and that data linked to your passport number, you're set for 2 years.
I understand the argument of "what's in it for me?" with regard to the visitor paying the $10. Many taxpayers ask the same question, whether it's property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, toll roads, etc. And of course not all answers are agreeable. If I don't have school-aged kids, but still have to pay $12,000 per year property taxes that mostly go to support the local school system, I might be more upset than the neighbor who has 4 kids in the public schools. Much of what I pay in federal income tax doesn't benefit me personally. Do your visitors ask how does your occupancy tax benefit them? Do some not come because of the occupancy taxes? Adding fees for entry would restrict inbound travel like occupancy taxes restrict travel. In the grand scheme of things, in my humble opinion, they are negligible. I don't cancel plans to rent a car when I see the fees add up to about 50% of the total charge. I don't cancel my stay at a B&B when I hear the occupancy taxes are 11%. I don't think anyone would cancel plans to come to America due to a $10 fee that covers them for 2 years.
I'm not sure why it was chosen that only Visa Waiver nationals must pay the fee and not ALL visitors. Maybe they were concerned that raising $131 to $141 would rock the boat too much. Hopefully, on account of the TPA working as hoped, the visitor will encounter a more robust, healthier tourism industry on account of the resurgence of inbound travel. Maybe that's the "what's in it for me?" Amusement parks that stay open, because they can staff the parks. I know some innkeepers who would agree that a 5% bump in occupancy at their inns could mean the difference between staying in business and taking down the shingle.
My opinion is that the $10 fee is very, very light and will not be an issue. Will it be a lead balloon with some? Probably. But will it inhibit travel that otherwise would have happened? Doubt it.
No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes..

No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes.

I'll just have to say, Jay, that you're losing my already lukewarm support altogether with that last paragraph.
I believe it's a false argument to say it's either impose a $10 fee or accept sagging tourism. I believe there are, indeed, other means to accomplish the same goal.
And I do not say that for the political reasons that you're describing. I say that from the practical perspective of what will work best and what will, at the same time, not create any badwill among potential visitors.
I think we all have the right to our opinions and if anyone doesn't support this for any reason, well, I'd like to see folks okay with that. Including you. They don't need to have a political standpoint to disagree with the means of increasing tourism.
I personally don't react well to those sort of assumptions. And I don't think I'm alone in that.
.

My intent was not to portray it as either you are for us or you're against us...or you support the $10 fee or live with a sagging travel economy, because I know the $10 fee is not a guaranteed cure-all. I wasn't making the argument - I was posing a question that I think is a legitimate way of examining the bill and what it hopes to accomplish.
This isn't the first and only idea to come to the table. Maybe I should have said that the travel industry (through the former Travel Industry Association, now called the US Travel Association) for years and years could not figure out how to collectively and effectively market America as a destination through other means. They tried launching and supporting programs, such as www.discoveramerica.com. There's never been the large-scale funding needed to make it work. It doesn't mean better ideas don't exist, but none have won the general support of the travel industry leadership like this one has, and the travel industry has to provide matching resources under this law.
Internal opposition to the bill has primarily focused on the opinion that it's not the federal government's role to promote America - let the private interests within the country bear the cost of promoting inbound travel. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been the most vocal. And I'm perfectly ok with that argument. Everyone probably draws a line in the sand in their own minds with regard to what the federal government should and should not engage in. I think this is one case where a public-private partnership makes good sense, even though I too am warm (not red hot) on the whole concept.
But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.
.

But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.

Understood.
But my point is that you'll garner more support by being open to the myriad of reasons for opposition rather than only understanding opposition based on political ideology.
Not to mention the fact that the same folks who could never agree on implementation of this idea privately would be likely candidates to serve on the nonprofit. Why will they be more successful now?
I believe, BTW, that it is absolutely in all of our best interests for the government to be involved in promoting tourism abroad. And when I say all of us, I mean all of us Americans, not only all of us innkeepers.
I am not at all convinced, though, that this is the appropriate vehicle for that. Or that the nonprofit formed will be successful in accomplishing its goals.
.

I'm not sure it's a matter of the travel industry leadership not agreeing on how a campaign could be implemented...I think they couldn't figure out how to fund it. The TPA is their best solution to that problem.
I'd love to hear other forms of opposition to the bill - you bet! I am open-minded to them. Can you tell I love debate? My opinion too can be swayed. Here are reasons for opposition that I've heard so far:

• The $10 fee will or could inhibit travel
• The $10 fee will only cause Visa Waiver countries to in turn impose more fees on US travelers
• The federal government has no business doing this

All are valid arguments, concerns or reasons to oppose it.
And then there's the argument that even a well-funded, well-executed campaign will not be enough to increase inbound travel. But, that's a hypothetical...just like it's hypothetical that it WILL increase inbound travel. In the end, it's a gamble. One that I'm willing to bet the visitor's ten bucks on.
.

Thanks, Jay. As you can tell, I enjoy a good debate myself. In fact, there are a lot of us here on this forum for whom that's true!

 

[Innkeeper To Go]

Earlier in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security began requiring visitors from Visa Waiver countries (again - those who do NOT pay the $131) to go online and fill out an ESTA form (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) before flying to the US. It is basically a security measure. Click here for details. If the Travel Promotion Act passes, the online form will also be the place where you pay the $10. Approval occurs when your passport info is double-checked against a list of flyers being watched by DHS. Apparently the process is electronic and almost instantaneous - to the adminstrative burden would theoretically be light.
I'm not sure exactly how the fee will be explained on the ESTA application web site, but here is a list of what the bill is supposed to make happen:
• Provide info on entry requirements, required documentation, fees, and processes, and declared public health emergencies to prospective travelers, travel agents, tour operators, meeting planners, foreign governments, travel media and other international stakeholders;
• Counter misperceptions regarding U.S. travel policy around the world;
• Promote increased travel to the U.S. through advertising, outreach to trade shows, and other appropriate promotional activities;
• Ensure benefits extend to rural and urban areas equally including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.
• Give priority to populations most likely to visit the U.S.
Apparently, the ESTA process is only applicable to those getting on an airplane to the US. And Canada and Mexico are NOT part of the Visa Waiver program. I assume once your ESTA has been approved and that data linked to your passport number, you're set for 2 years.
I understand the argument of "what's in it for me?" with regard to the visitor paying the $10. Many taxpayers ask the same question, whether it's property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, toll roads, etc. And of course not all answers are agreeable. If I don't have school-aged kids, but still have to pay $12,000 per year property taxes that mostly go to support the local school system, I might be more upset than the neighbor who has 4 kids in the public schools. Much of what I pay in federal income tax doesn't benefit me personally. Do your visitors ask how does your occupancy tax benefit them? Do some not come because of the occupancy taxes? Adding fees for entry would restrict inbound travel like occupancy taxes restrict travel. In the grand scheme of things, in my humble opinion, they are negligible. I don't cancel plans to rent a car when I see the fees add up to about 50% of the total charge. I don't cancel my stay at a B&B when I hear the occupancy taxes are 11%. I don't think anyone would cancel plans to come to America due to a $10 fee that covers them for 2 years.
I'm not sure why it was chosen that only Visa Waiver nationals must pay the fee and not ALL visitors. Maybe they were concerned that raising $131 to $141 would rock the boat too much. Hopefully, on account of the TPA working as hoped, the visitor will encounter a more robust, healthier tourism industry on account of the resurgence of inbound travel. Maybe that's the "what's in it for me?" Amusement parks that stay open, because they can staff the parks. I know some innkeepers who would agree that a 5% bump in occupancy at their inns could mean the difference between staying in business and taking down the shingle.
My opinion is that the $10 fee is very, very light and will not be an issue. Will it be a lead balloon with some? Probably. But will it inhibit travel that otherwise would have happened? Doubt it.
No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes..

No one likes new fees. But I guess an appropriate question might be - which does the travel industry like LESS? Imposing and collecting a new $10 fee or a serioiusly sagging and troubling inbound leisure and business travel situation? Collectively, how else would the entire travel/tourism industry effectively do those things outlined in the TPA without the assistance and partnership of the federal government? If you do not think it's important that America market ourselves overseas as a means to boost inbound travel, then I can understand opposition to the bill. Or, if you firmly believe that it's not the role of the federal government to involve itself in economic stimulus like this, then I can understand opposition to the bill. I suppose I would weigh those positions against the potential outcomes, rather than isolate those positions independent of potential outcomes.

I'll just have to say, Jay, that you're losing my already lukewarm support altogether with that last paragraph.
I believe it's a false argument to say it's either impose a $10 fee or accept sagging tourism. I believe there are, indeed, other means to accomplish the same goal.
And I do not say that for the political reasons that you're describing. I say that from the practical perspective of what will work best and what will, at the same time, not create any badwill among potential visitors.
I think we all have the right to our opinions and if anyone doesn't support this for any reason, well, I'd like to see folks okay with that. Including you. They don't need to have a political standpoint to disagree with the means of increasing tourism.
I personally don't react well to those sort of assumptions. And I don't think I'm alone in that.
.

My intent was not to portray it as either you are for us or you're against us...or you support the $10 fee or live with a sagging travel economy, because I know the $10 fee is not a guaranteed cure-all. I wasn't making the argument - I was posing a question that I think is a legitimate way of examining the bill and what it hopes to accomplish.
This isn't the first and only idea to come to the table. Maybe I should have said that the travel industry (through the former Travel Industry Association, now called the US Travel Association) for years and years could not figure out how to collectively and effectively market America as a destination through other means. They tried launching and supporting programs, such as www.discoveramerica.com. There's never been the large-scale funding needed to make it work. It doesn't mean better ideas don't exist, but none have won the general support of the travel industry leadership like this one has, and the travel industry has to provide matching resources under this law.
Internal opposition to the bill has primarily focused on the opinion that it's not the federal government's role to promote America - let the private interests within the country bear the cost of promoting inbound travel. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been the most vocal. And I'm perfectly ok with that argument. Everyone probably draws a line in the sand in their own minds with regard to what the federal government should and should not engage in. I think this is one case where a public-private partnership makes good sense, even though I too am warm (not red hot) on the whole concept.
But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.
.

But because I'm generally warm on it and agree with it and think it's good enough, I'm going to support it and try to garner support. Of course everyone has a right to their opinions - including opposition to the bill. It doesn't mean I won't try to persuade someone to change their opinion about the bill.

Understood.
But my point is that you'll garner more support by being open to the myriad of reasons for opposition rather than only understanding opposition based on political ideology.
Not to mention the fact that the same folks who could never agree on implementation of this idea privately would be likely candidates to serve on the nonprofit. Why will they be more successful now?
I believe, BTW, that it is absolutely in all of our best interests for the government to be involved in promoting tourism abroad. And when I say all of us, I mean all of us Americans, not only all of us innkeepers.
I am not at all convinced, though, that this is the appropriate vehicle for that. Or that the nonprofit formed will be successful in accomplishing its goals.
.

I'm not sure it's a matter of the travel industry leadership not agreeing on how a campaign could be implemented...I think they couldn't figure out how to fund it. The TPA is their best solution to that problem.
I'd love to hear other forms of opposition to the bill - you bet! I am open-minded to them. Can you tell I love debate? My opinion too can be swayed. Here are reasons for opposition that I've heard so far:

• The $10 fee will or could inhibit travel
• The $10 fee will only cause Visa Waiver countries to in turn impose more fees on US travelers
• The federal government has no business doing this

All are valid arguments, concerns or reasons to oppose it.
And then there's the argument that even a well-funded, well-executed campaign will not be enough to increase inbound travel. But, that's a hypothetical...just like it's hypothetical that it WILL increase inbound travel. In the end, it's a gamble. One that I'm willing to bet the visitor's ten bucks on.
.

Who needs an international travel campaign when we have Jerry Springer and the news. -UGH- Sorry I just had to add that sorry bit of info.
Countries around the world see the USA on every channel every day/night. Sure it would be nice to portray Yanks in a good light, but why spoil all their fun. They either want to come here and visit Disneyland, NYC and Hollywood or they don't. I truly wish we could portray ourselves better, we are not all like they see on TV (except we all do have big bright white smiles with straight teeth)
.

Countries around the world see the USA on every channel every day/night. Sure it would be nice to portray Yanks in a good light, but why spoil all their fun. They either want to come here and visit Disneyland, NYC and Hollywood or they don't. I truly wish we could portray ourselves better, we are not all like they see on TV (except we all do have big bright white smiles with straight teeth)

Hehehehe.
When we're in France and there's a show on the teevee it invariably shows someone running down a hospital corridor shooting someone. We always try to make light of it with my mother-in-law by saying (in French, of course, since she speaks zero English), "oh, just another day in America." Every single time, no matter how many times we do it, she'll say back, with all sincerity, "Really?" leaving us to crack up and scream "NOOOO, it's teevee!"
That is what they see about us. That is what they believe we are.

 

[JBloggs]

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table]

 

[Copperhead]

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table].

JB this is one of the reasons I was not put off by the proposed $10 fee. The cost of my last international flight was almost half again more once they added all the fees/taxes imposed. Ten dollars for 2 years is quite fair.

 

[egoodell]

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table].

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table]

No wonder we are getting so many guests this year. I'd rather drive to vacation too after reading this. So the airlines are creating "deals" by not including the taxes they used to as well as charging for luggage and blankets and pillows
Riki

 

[EmptyNest]

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table].

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table]

No wonder we are getting so many guests this year. I'd rather drive to vacation too after reading this. So the airlines are creating "deals" by not including the taxes they used to as well as charging for luggage and blankets and pillows
Riki
.

I absolutely refuse to fly anywhere these days. I never did like flying that much and now with all the security hassles and airline charges..more for less...I am not going to do it.

 

[jkarennj]

The Senate passed the bill last night: http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-releases/senate-passes-bipartisan-travel-promotion-act

 

[Innkeeper To Go]

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table].

Just got another hot deal and saw this and oh it puts me off soooo much. I just don't want to be like this, ten bucks is fair, but when you see all these segment fees/charges/luggage fees etc:
[tr]Additional taxes/fees
U.S./Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands fares do not include a $3.70 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11thSecurity Fee of $2.50 per enplanement at a U.S. airport or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii and Alaska do not include an $8.10 (each way) departure tax. For travel from Canada, fares do not include U.S. inspection fees of $7, taxes/fees imposed by the Canadian government of up to $19.50, and a $32.20 international departure and arrival tax if outside of the 225-mile buffer zone. All international fares are subject to U.S. arrival and departure taxes and agricultural, immigrations and customs fees of up to $50. For travel to some countries, additional airport, transportation, embarkation, security, and passenger service taxes/surcharges of up to $250 (each way) will apply depending on destination. For return travel from some countries, fares do not include airport and/or departure taxes of up to $45, which may be collected by the foreign government.[/td][/tr][/table]

No wonder we are getting so many guests this year. I'd rather drive to vacation too after reading this. So the airlines are creating "deals" by not including the taxes they used to as well as charging for luggage and blankets and pillows
Riki
.

I absolutely refuse to fly anywhere these days. I never did like flying that much and now with all the security hassles and airline charges..more for less...I am not going to do it.
.

The whole experience has been made into just as much of a nightmare as is humanly possible.

 

[gillumhouse]

My State has maintained Travel offices in England and Germany for years. They did close the office in Japan during the Japanese recession.

 

[Innkeeper To Go]

My State has maintained Travel offices in England and Germany for years. They did close the office in Japan during the Japanese recession..

For such a little state, I've always been very impressed with WV's tourist board. Wish they were all so good.

 

[Copperhead]

The Senate passed the bill last night: http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-releases/senate-passes-bipartisan-travel-promotion-act.

 

[Copperhead]

Of course the AOL news feed headline said "U.S. to slap admission fee on tourists"
www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/26/travel.promotion.act/index.htm