Federal government can’t solve alone

EXT - beaches/travel and tourism key to competitiveness

travel and tourism key to competitiveness but edge is slipping

Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)

TRAVEL AND TOURISM:¶ KEY TO INTERNATIONAL¶ COMPETITIVENESS¶ The U.S. is a major player in the international travel and tourism industry. International tourists, who represent 10%-15% of tourists in the U.S., spent $108¶ billion in 2007 (U.S. Department of Com-merce 2007). This is greater than the combined export value of U.S. agricultural¶ grains, aircraft, computers, and telecommunications equipment (U.S. Census¶ Bureau 2007b). The U.S. runs massive¶ annual trade deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars, but travel and tourism is¶ one of the few bright spots with a trade¶ surplus of $7.2 billion (U.S. Department¶ of Commerce 2007) in 2006. This surplus¶ is greater than the U.S. trade surplus of¶ $5.5 billion for all agricultural commodi-ties (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006).¶ The U.S. surplus in travel and tourism¶ was $26.4 billion in 1996, but U.S. poli-cies that discourage international tourist¶ visits and lack of competitive activities¶ to attract international tourists have¶ stalled visits. Americans take pride in U.S.¶ high-technology industries, but the U.S.¶ ran a trade deficit in high-technology¶ goods of $102 billion in 2006 (Associ-ated Press 2007b). This deficit has¶ doubled since 2000 with the U.S. being¶ the largest importer of high-technology¶ goods from China (Associated Press¶ 2007b).¶ International tourists visiting the U.S.¶ produced estimated tax revenues in 2006¶ of $13.6 billion (U.S Department of¶ Commerce 2007 and U.S. Chamber of¶ Commerce 2005). The U.S. Travel and¶ Tourism Administration (abolished by¶ Congress in 1996) published data show-ing the recipients of $7.5 billion of tax¶ revenues from international tourists in¶ 1995 (U.S. Travel and Tourism Admin-istration 1994). The majority of these tax¶ revenues (53% or about $4 billion) went¶ to the federal government with state gov-ernments receiving 33%. Local govern-ments that provided most of the tourist-support infrastructure received only¶ 14.3% of the tax revenue. Assuming the¶ federal government received the same¶ percentage of taxes from international¶ tourists in 2006 as 1995, the federal gov-ernment received $7.2 billion in taxes¶ from international tourists in 2006.

beaches key to the econ and competitiveness

Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)

CONCLUSION¶ Travel and tourism is America’s lead-ing industry, employer, and earner of for-eign exchange; and beaches are¶ America’s leading tourist destination.¶ Few Americans realize that beaches are¶ a key driver of America’s economy and¶ support U.S. competitiveness in a world¶ economy. Perhaps Americans do not ap-preciate the importance of tourism to the¶ national economy because 98 percent of¶ the 1.4-million tourism-related businesses in the United States are classified¶ as small businesses, and this makes the¶ industry extremely fragmented (U.S.¶ Travel and Tourism Administration¶ 1995). Lacking national advertising from¶ either this fragmented industry or a na-tional travel office, the importance of¶ travel and tourism to the national¶ economy has not been communicated to¶ the American people. The conclusion one¶ draws today is the same as that noted by¶ Houston (1995a),“Without a paradigm¶ shift in attitudes toward the economic¶ significance of travel and tourism and¶ necessary infrastructure investment to¶ maintain and restore beaches, the U.S.¶ will relinquish a dominant worldwide¶ lead in its most important industry.”

2NC Impact – California Economy

offshore drilling ruins California beaches-key to their economy

Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,” www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)

California¶ California’s coast stretches for 840 miles and comprises of everything from rugged cliffs¶ to sandy beaches. Stretches of it are iconic the world over and its ocean economy is the¶ largest and most vibrant in the nation.¶ California’s beaches are the most visited tourist attraction in the state. Its wide variety of¶ shorelines, rocky outcroppings, and pristine beaches beckon droves of people by the¶ millions. By some estimates, coastal tourism contributes as much as $94 billion to¶ California's economy and supports over 900,000 jobs.¶ 22¶ Of this, beach tourism is¶ expected to generate $14 billion in direct revenue.¶ 23¶ Around $5 billion goes directly to¶ the state in the form of taxes which provide crucial services.

Californian collapse destroys heg and the economy

Gvosdev 3 (Nikolas, Editor – National Interest, The National Interest, Vol. 2, Issue 30, 8-13, http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue32/Vol2Issue32Realist.html)

But the real issue is this:  people "inside the Beltway" sometimes seem to forget that there is no "United States" apart from the fifty states (and associated territories and commonwealths).  A fiscal and economic crisis in California has a direct impact on the power of the United States, since some 13 percent of the total U.S. output is produced by California.  California on its own is the sixth largest economy in the world, worth some $1.309 trillion--yet this represents a decline of approximately 2.3 percent from 2000, when California's economy outperformed that of France.    California represents a significant share of the country's technological base and of its human capital.  The high-tech weaponry which led to a swift initial military victory in Iraq is in part a product of the technology and defense sectors of the California economy.  A state budget crisis that significantly cuts back on everything from education (including higher education, where so many innovative breakthroughs have taken place) to health care has ramifications for how the United States projects its influence throughout the world.  In previous issues of In the National Interest, other authors have pointed out the dangerous implications of continued deficit spending by the federal government to support overseas operations, and this problem can only increase if a continuing crisis in the principal engine of America's economy continues. And, of course, California is the bellweather for the nation as a whole.  Twenty-nine states have either passed or are considering tax hikes to close budget deficits.  Several states--including Hawaii, Georgia and North Carolina--will call special fall sessions of their legislatures to deal with the fact that collected taxes have fallen short of budget projections.  Yet the attitude is that the recall in California is amusing political comedy, nothing more.  There seems to be almost no recognition of the fact that whoever sits in the governor's chair after October 7 --whether Grey Davis survives or is "terminated" --must work quickly to solve the problems that have led California into its current quagmire.  Few other countries in the world would be so blasé if political turmoil and economic collapse threatened the welfare of a key component of its national power.  The California crisis reminds us that there is no neat line dividing "domestic" and "foreign" policy.  Ensuring that California survives its current crisis is no less a priority than stabilizing Iraq or containing North Korea.

Global nuclear war

Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member – Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor – Russia in Global Affairs, “Is a New Cold War Imminent?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)

However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly. International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear strikes between them. Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.