Spending by international visitors to the United States in March 2013 totaled more than $1 4.4 billion, an increase of nearly 3 percent when compared to last year. International visitors spent $43 billion on travel to, and tourism-related activities within, the United States during the first quarter of 2013. This according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
“International travel and tourism represents our country’s largest services export,” said Commerce Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank. “So far this year, international visitor spending in the United States has markedly outpaced U.S. spending abroad by more than $13 billion, which continues our momentum from 2012’s record-setting year."
Last week’s jobs report showed continued strong job growth in the leisure and hospitality industry.
Purchases of travel and tourism-related goods and services by international visitors traveling in the United States totaled $11 billion during March. These goods and services include food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, local transportation in the United States, and other items incidental to foreign travel. Fares receiv ed by U.S. carriers and U.S. vessel operators from international visitors also increased by nearly 3 percent to $3.4 billion for the month, an increase of $70 million when compared to March 2012.
Overall, the United States enjoyed a favorable balance of trade for the month of March in the travel and tourism sector, with a surplus of $4.2 billion.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Deaths resulting from attacks on U.S. consulates, embassies
During the two terms of President George W. Bush, there were a number of attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies around the world that resulted in deaths. Most were in the Middle and Near East.
2002 U.S. consulate, Karachi, Pakistan - 12 deaths
2004 U.S. embassy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan - 2 deaths
2006 U.S. consulate, Damascus, Syria - 4 deaths
2008 U.S. consulate, Istanbul, Turkey - 6 deaths
2008 U.S. embassy, Sana'a, Yemen - 19 deaths
And who could forget the collosal intelligence failures that resulted in 2,977 killed on our soil on Sept. 11, 2001?
2002 U.S. consulate, Karachi, Pakistan - 12 deaths
2004 U.S. embassy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan - 2 deaths
2006 U.S. consulate, Damascus, Syria - 4 deaths
2008 U.S. consulate, Istanbul, Turkey - 6 deaths
2008 U.S. embassy, Sana'a, Yemen - 19 deaths
And who could forget the collosal intelligence failures that resulted in 2,977 killed on our soil on Sept. 11, 2001?
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Lessons not learned
Republicans have a very weird way of showing they have learned the lessons of 2008 and 2012, when they lost the White House twice. To be charitable, Republicans were taught two woodshed lessons in coalition politics ... and they didn't get it.
I think some Republicans are smart, and the ones who are smart are generally true conservatives. But the stupid Republicans are not. (Think "neo-con" and "tea party".)
What demographic do you alienate when you pass voter ID legislation requiring a government-issued picture ID?
What demographic do you alienate when you pass anti-immigrant legislation?
What demographic do you alienate when you pass new restrictions on contraception, abortion clinics and their services?
That's right.
I think some Republicans are smart, and the ones who are smart are generally true conservatives. But the stupid Republicans are not. (Think "neo-con" and "tea party".)
What demographic do you alienate when you pass voter ID legislation requiring a government-issued picture ID?
What demographic do you alienate when you pass anti-immigrant legislation?
What demographic do you alienate when you pass new restrictions on contraception, abortion clinics and their services?
That's right.
Monday, December 17, 2012
How to stop school shootings and mass murder
Responsible gun owners recognize an AR-15 (the military version is the M-16) as a good rifle. It is very good at killing lots of people. Remington manufactures a 90-round drum magazine for the weapon's .223 ammunition (5.56 mm NATO), which costs about $120. Standard magazines are 20 and 30 rounds. There is no reason to produce a 90-round magazine.
I qualified with the M-16 during basic training in the Army. It is a fine weapon, but it was designed to kill lots of people. The M-16 was not made for hunters; it was made for soldiers to kill the enemy.
Adam Lanza killed 20 children with an AR-15.
The unspeakable tragedy on December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six teachers died could not have been prevented. This was the fifth school shooting this year since an eighth grade student engaged police officers at Cummings Middle School on January 4 in Brownsville, Texas, and was killed. No one else was killed or injured.
There have been at least 73 school shootings since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado, in which 15 students and a teacher were killed; 23 wounded. The gunmen killed themselves.
If we had a solution to this, I think we would have found it already. It is sad commentary on our people and political leaders that we haven't. We must try to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people. But budgetary cutbacks on mental health services and institutions -- both at the state and federal level -- make it unlikely that someone who wants to kill lots of people will provide warning signs to a mental health professional before he strikes.
I'm afraid gun control won't work very well either, but reimposing the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, might help some.
Security doors for schools that require the person who wishes to enter the locked security door to push a buzzer or intercom and a camera trained on the entrance is certainly a low-cost approach. These security doors are probably being installed in schools around the nation as I write this. At least I hope so.
The only common-sense solution is to arm teachers and teach them how to use their weapons to protect themselves and their students. Not all teachers, but at least the ones who volunteer to get the firearms training they will need. And there definitely needs to be a semi-automatic pistol in the principal's office, which is usually found close to the entrance of schools.
It's either that, or post an armed guard at the front door. Because how do you keep crazy people from getting guns and killing people? As a nation, we don't have good options to resolve this. Now the politicians will appoint "blue-ribbon commissions" and special committees of lawmakers to come up with suggestions to solve the problem, but new policies and laws and enforcement are not what we need. We need to do something practical to protect our children in the short term, so this is what I think we should do: Arm teachers.
I qualified with the M-16 during basic training in the Army. It is a fine weapon, but it was designed to kill lots of people. The M-16 was not made for hunters; it was made for soldiers to kill the enemy.
Adam Lanza killed 20 children with an AR-15.
The unspeakable tragedy on December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six teachers died could not have been prevented. This was the fifth school shooting this year since an eighth grade student engaged police officers at Cummings Middle School on January 4 in Brownsville, Texas, and was killed. No one else was killed or injured.
There have been at least 73 school shootings since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado, in which 15 students and a teacher were killed; 23 wounded. The gunmen killed themselves.
If we had a solution to this, I think we would have found it already. It is sad commentary on our people and political leaders that we haven't. We must try to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people. But budgetary cutbacks on mental health services and institutions -- both at the state and federal level -- make it unlikely that someone who wants to kill lots of people will provide warning signs to a mental health professional before he strikes.
I'm afraid gun control won't work very well either, but reimposing the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, might help some.
Security doors for schools that require the person who wishes to enter the locked security door to push a buzzer or intercom and a camera trained on the entrance is certainly a low-cost approach. These security doors are probably being installed in schools around the nation as I write this. At least I hope so.
The only common-sense solution is to arm teachers and teach them how to use their weapons to protect themselves and their students. Not all teachers, but at least the ones who volunteer to get the firearms training they will need. And there definitely needs to be a semi-automatic pistol in the principal's office, which is usually found close to the entrance of schools.
It's either that, or post an armed guard at the front door. Because how do you keep crazy people from getting guns and killing people? As a nation, we don't have good options to resolve this. Now the politicians will appoint "blue-ribbon commissions" and special committees of lawmakers to come up with suggestions to solve the problem, but new policies and laws and enforcement are not what we need. We need to do something practical to protect our children in the short term, so this is what I think we should do: Arm teachers.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Republican senators toss a bone to the DREAMers
Three influential U.S. senators have introduced a Republican version of the DREAM Act.
The bill would provide a pathway for young people who came to the United States without inspection at the border (i.e., unlawfully) and who complete military service or higher education and work in the United States for at least four years to become permanent residents.
But not citizenship.
Called the "Achieve Act", the bill would provide a permanent residence visa (often called a "green card") to people younger than 28 who were brought to the United States prior to reaching age 14. It would be made available to young people who do not have serious criminal records and who agree not to apply for federal government benefits, including federal student loans.
That's like saying, "Sure, kid, you can take my car, but I'm keeping the keys."
None of the armed services allows illegal aliens to enlist. And these young people are the children of middle income parents, so prohibiting them from obtaining student loans is the same as locking them out of the classroom.
Two of the three Republican senators -- John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) -- are on their way out of the Senate. It was McCain who worked closely with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in years past to draft comprehensive immigration reform, which has gone nowhere in this do-nothing Congress.
In stark contrast, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) would provide a path to citizenship for young people who have lived in the United States for at least five years prior to the date of enactment of the bill. If they complete two years of military service or two years of higher education, they would obtain temporary legal residence for a six-year period.
During that six-year period, they may obtain permanent residence if they complete military service and obtain an honorable discharge or complete a higher education degree program.
The DREAM Act's chief sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Supporters of the DREAM Act say it would simply extend legal residence to good American kids who came to the United States without the capacity to commit a misdemeanor by crossing the border without inspection. Critics call it "amnesty."
I don't call Congress's failure to pass the DREAM act "stupid", but I certainly don't think this failure is smart immigration policy. Neither is Congress's failure to allocate more immigrant visas for highly skilled workers.
The bill would provide a pathway for young people who came to the United States without inspection at the border (i.e., unlawfully) and who complete military service or higher education and work in the United States for at least four years to become permanent residents.
But not citizenship.
Called the "Achieve Act", the bill would provide a permanent residence visa (often called a "green card") to people younger than 28 who were brought to the United States prior to reaching age 14. It would be made available to young people who do not have serious criminal records and who agree not to apply for federal government benefits, including federal student loans.
That's like saying, "Sure, kid, you can take my car, but I'm keeping the keys."
None of the armed services allows illegal aliens to enlist. And these young people are the children of middle income parents, so prohibiting them from obtaining student loans is the same as locking them out of the classroom.
Two of the three Republican senators -- John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) -- are on their way out of the Senate. It was McCain who worked closely with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in years past to draft comprehensive immigration reform, which has gone nowhere in this do-nothing Congress.
In stark contrast, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) would provide a path to citizenship for young people who have lived in the United States for at least five years prior to the date of enactment of the bill. If they complete two years of military service or two years of higher education, they would obtain temporary legal residence for a six-year period.
During that six-year period, they may obtain permanent residence if they complete military service and obtain an honorable discharge or complete a higher education degree program.
The DREAM Act's chief sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Supporters of the DREAM Act say it would simply extend legal residence to good American kids who came to the United States without the capacity to commit a misdemeanor by crossing the border without inspection. Critics call it "amnesty."
I don't call Congress's failure to pass the DREAM act "stupid", but I certainly don't think this failure is smart immigration policy. Neither is Congress's failure to allocate more immigrant visas for highly skilled workers.
Monday, November 19, 2012
The 'Don'ts' of how to win presidential elections for Republicans
Here's what Republicans need to stop doing to win presidential elections:
1. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is wrong about many things, but he is right about this: The GOP does not have enough "angry white men" to win presidential elections. In order for the Republican Party to win the White House, it must attract new voters who are non-white, i.e., African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans. Changing demographics is a fact of life in America, and Republicans' "fact-denial" and "science-denial" are retro. Telling Hispanics who are here without benefit of "papers" that they must "self-deport" is not helpful. Saying that 47 percent of the American people are shiftless and lazy and just looking for a handout is not helpful. Forty percent of white voters voted for Obama, folks. Think forward.
2. Pick a winner. The Republican presidential primary is a well-known joke. Contestants run so far to the right to win the party faithful that they wind up looking like Attila the Hun in business suits. Late-night comedians are the only beneficiaries of this process. Republicans, independent voters, and know-nothings suffer in silence. Find someone with street cred and compassion for the little guy, and you might pick a winner. Might.
3. Stop bringing up settled issues. Abortion rights and contraception for women and equal pay for equal work are issues that were settled 38 or more years ago. Some Republicans who carry fundamental religious beliefs into the public square are driving the party into the sewer, insisting that life begins at conception. Now part of the Republican Party platform, this fundamentally flawed principle will keep the party's presidential candidate out of the White House forever. The political lesson, my Republican friends, is this: Pick fights with women and you lose.
4. Stop the "no tax increase" mantra. Sure, the American people are taxed enough, but the tax rates are lower now than they were 20 years ago. No one wants their taxes to increase, but with deficits so huge that the nation can't even afford the interest payments, we better be looking for revenue sources. If Republicans can't recognize this, there's no trip to the White House for them. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't give voters with middle class incomes a warm, fuzzy feeling. But they do brand a party as favoring the rich.
5. Quit giving the Pentagon and Wall Street free passes. The defense budget is so bloated that you couldn't even draw something fat enough to represent it in a cartoon. The Cold War was over 23 years ago, but the Republicans are in "fact-denial", with Mitt Romney famously calling Russia our "enemy". Do we need more nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers and next-generation fighter aircraft (that cost $40 million a copy) and nuclear missiles to fight the Cold War when we're fighting Taliban with AK-47s dug in to a hillside? Republicans have to acknowledge that 911 and the invasion of Iraq happened on their watch. Talk about failures of intelligence. Those fiascos -- the former costing almost 3,000 American dead and the latter costing 5,000 American dead and more than 20,000 wounded -- make the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, look like a baby's playpen. Wall Street will find lots of ways to screw the customers without Republicans' help. I don't know when that became the way to do business in America but it's a fact of life today. No White House for you.
Will Republicans stop doing any of this? Of course not.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Why the Republicans lost the White House again
The time for Republicans to examine their party's direction and composition is upon them. This presidential election was razor close, sure, but history repeats itself. Study federal elections in the 1880s.
I think Republicans have forgotten their conservative roots, which I boil down to four, the source being former GOP presidential candidate and Arizona senator Barry Goldwater.
The first is maximum liberty. If your government can't protect your freedom and liberties, it's not much of a government. Goldwater was pro-life, but he was not anti-abortion. His wife was head of Planned Parenthood for his home state of Arizona. He consistently voted to uphold abortion rights and opposed efforts to pass a constitutional amendment reversing Roe v. Wade.
The second is limited government. True conservatives don't believe in "no government", but they don't want the government they know they must have to be intrusive and control people's lives and fortunes (see maximum liberty above). Safety and security are jobs one and two. After that, real conservatives take a hard look at the role the federal government should play in, e.g., education. What does the United States Constitution say about the federal government's role in education?
Third is a balanced budget. The last time the federal government reported a budget surplus, according to the Congressional Budget Office, were the years 1998 to 2000, the last three years of the Clinton administration. It's been downhill from there, and both major parties have contributed to the slide into red ink as far as the eye can see.
Finally, there is the matter of war and military power. True coservatives are not isolationists or hawks, but they do believe in not waging wars of opportunity or adventure. We need to call these "wars" (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan) what they really are: Occupations. It's easy to start a war, but the United States is proving that it is darn difficult to end one.
Do I think Republican leaders can get together and, after some serious soul-searching, return to conservative roots? The short answer is no. The party and its platform have strayed so far from its bedrock conservative principles that it ran out of breadcrumbs and can't find its way back.
I think Republicans have forgotten their conservative roots, which I boil down to four, the source being former GOP presidential candidate and Arizona senator Barry Goldwater.
The first is maximum liberty. If your government can't protect your freedom and liberties, it's not much of a government. Goldwater was pro-life, but he was not anti-abortion. His wife was head of Planned Parenthood for his home state of Arizona. He consistently voted to uphold abortion rights and opposed efforts to pass a constitutional amendment reversing Roe v. Wade.
The second is limited government. True conservatives don't believe in "no government", but they don't want the government they know they must have to be intrusive and control people's lives and fortunes (see maximum liberty above). Safety and security are jobs one and two. After that, real conservatives take a hard look at the role the federal government should play in, e.g., education. What does the United States Constitution say about the federal government's role in education?
Third is a balanced budget. The last time the federal government reported a budget surplus, according to the Congressional Budget Office, were the years 1998 to 2000, the last three years of the Clinton administration. It's been downhill from there, and both major parties have contributed to the slide into red ink as far as the eye can see.
Finally, there is the matter of war and military power. True coservatives are not isolationists or hawks, but they do believe in not waging wars of opportunity or adventure. We need to call these "wars" (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan) what they really are: Occupations. It's easy to start a war, but the United States is proving that it is darn difficult to end one.
Do I think Republican leaders can get together and, after some serious soul-searching, return to conservative roots? The short answer is no. The party and its platform have strayed so far from its bedrock conservative principles that it ran out of breadcrumbs and can't find its way back.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)