A Poor Portrayal of a Good Idea
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The United States has lost tens of millions of overseas visitors since Sept. 11, 2001. Overseas visitors spend an average of $4,000 per trip and leave with a more favorable impression of America than they arrived with. To welcome more visitors, we must improve our communications with international travelers and their experience entering the country while we strengthen America's security.
The Travel Promotion Act would address this problem without cost to taxpayers and with up to $100 million in private-sector funding. That is why it has attracted bipartisan support in Congress as well as broad support from more than 50 organizations and companies, including the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Unfortunately, few of these points were made in the recent Post Magazine cover story ["How Lobbyists Always Win," Feb. 17]. From the beginning, the industry was determined to find a source of funding that would not cost American taxpayers. The article gave a false impression of our motives to support a program that is in the national interest and similar to what is in place in nearly every other developed nation.
ROGER J. DOW
President and Chief Executive
Travel Industry Association
Washington
