MADRID (AFP) – World tourism rebounded strongly this year from the global financial crisis, led by Asia and the Middle East, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) said Friday.

But the Madrid-based body also urged caution, noting that some major developed nations have not yet fully emerged from the economic doldrums.

International tourist arrivals totaled 421 million in the first six months of 2010, up 7.0 percent on last year but still 2.0 percent below the record year of 2008, the UNWTO said in a report.

The results follow "one of the toughest years for the tourism sector" in 2009, when tourist arrivals declined by 4.2 percent following the global financial meltdown.

It noted that growth was modest in April due the closure of European airspace following the eruption of the volcano in Iceland, but results were strong in May and June.

"Growth was positive in all world regions, led by a robust performance of emerging economies, expanding at 8.0 percent compared to 6.0 percent in advanced economies."

Asia and the Pacific, where tourist arrivals were up 14 percent, and the Middle East, where the figure was 20 percent, "continue to lead growth in the first half of 2010 with the majority of destinations in both regions posting double digit growth rates.

"Asia in particular is experiencing a very dynamic rebound," it said, noting strong results in particular from Sri Lanka, Japan, Vietnam, Myanmar and Hong Kong.

Tourism in the Americas was up 7.0 percent, and Europe 2.0 percent.

But UNWTO Secretary-General Taleb Rifai warned that "although we are witnessing a clear recovery in international tourism, we must remain cautious."

"In many advanced economies, namely in the USA and in some major European markets, economic recovery has still to consolidate," he was quoted as saying in a UNWTO statement.

"To this we must add the recent introduction and increase in taxation, most specifically those which directly impact the tourism sector, such as air transport taxes."

For the whole of 2010, the body maintained its forecast of 3.0 to 4.0 percent growth in international tourism.

"Current growth rates, coupled with an improving global economic environment suggest that end-year results are likely to be closer to 4.0 percent, and may even exceed this figure.

"However, high unemployment continues to be a major cause of concern and the austerity measures as well as the rise in taxation implemented in several advanced economies to fight public deficits represent a clear challenge to many leading outbound markets."

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

LOS ANGELES – A $1.6 billion congressional bailout of sorts could help financially flailing groups that fight to keep young people out of trouble, yet lawmakers are reluctant to take up the expensive proposal amid a sour economy and other, more pressing issues.

The Youth Promise Act would dole out money to organizations like Homeboy Industries, a gang rehabilitation center founded in 2001 under the motto "Nothing stops a bullet like a job." The group's founder Father Greg Boyle recently had to lay off more than 300 of his 427 workers, most of them former gang members, when expected revenues plummeted.

His organization isn't the only one suffering. The recession has hit other nonprofits across the country hard and left some wondering how they will survive.

"It would be a lifeline for us and a lifeline for many other organizations," Omar Jahwar, founder of and chief executive of Dallas-based Vision Regeneration, said of the Youth Promise Act. His group works to prevent youth violence in Dallas County.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who authored the bill, said the tough-on-crime rhetoric that politicians campaign on has proven ineffective. He faulted slogan-driven crime initiatives, such as the "three strikes and you're out" law, which create lengthy and expensive sentencing requirements.

Scott's bill currently has 235 co-sponsors in the U.S. House but only 14 in the Senate. Scott does not know if it will get approved this session, in part because it is also competing with another crime bill he opposes, proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. That bill would create a string of new criminal offenses and enhanced penalties for gang members.

Scott and Feinstein are negotiating over whether the bills could be combined.

But another bailout bill will be a tough sell, especially among Republicans.

"We cannot afford to throw more money toward another expensive government program at a time when our citizens are burdened with higher and higher federal debt," said Tracy Hancock, president of Texas-based Golden Corridor Republican Women.

But for Scott, the cost pales in comparison to how much is already spent on punishing young criminals.

In Los Angeles County, it costs $140,000 a year to keep a minor in juvenile hall.

"It's totally counterproductive," Scott said. "If you put a small portion of that money into prevention and early intervention, you would have a much better result."

The Youth Promise Act would distribute money to organizations that form a panel and can show their programs are effective. A city official would be on the panel along with law enforcement agencies, which would also be eligible for funding of their own crime prevention and gang intervention programs.

David Muhlhausen, a senior policy analyst with conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, said youth crime prevention should be left to state and local governments.

A central provision of the bill is that the programs getting funding must be replicated from programs that have been proven to work.

"These programs almost always fail when replicated in other jurisdictions," Muhlhausen said.

Rick Velasquez, executive director of Youth Outreach Services in Chicago, said his nonprofit has seen revenues decline by about 15 percent and he's had to cut 15 workers from the payroll. He has encouraged one of his senators to support the Youth Promise Act.

"It is a piece of legislation that will help us," said Velasquez, whose group provides counseling to at-risk young people. "We have to seriously reinvest in our young people and this one of the mechanisms to do that."

At Homeboy Industries, Boyle employs former gang members to work in the center's bakery, restaurant or T-shirt press. However, workers in these businesses were largely insulated from recent cuts.

Most of those laid off were getting paid simply to attend training and carry out maintenance and administrative work at the center's downtown headquarters.

For many, it was the only place hiring.

"I never got a call back," said former gang member Robert Trejo, reflecting on his dozens of attempts to get hired elsewhere.

He was fired as a receptionist in May. After applying without success to 50 jobs, the 23-year-old father of three was left wondering if he had any choice but to return to the street.

"I think I will probably go back to the life, it's the only thing I know," Trejo said. "It's so easy making money. I can make $15-$500 in an hour or two (selling drugs) or robbing."

Trejo was eventually rehired, thanks to a flurry of donations after Boyle carried out a publicity blitz, but how many workers Homeboy can hire back without the Youth Promise money remains in question.

"We can't just rail at the fact that they are in a gang," Boyle said. "We have to also offer them an opportunity to get off this crazy freeway, and that is the part the Youth Promise Act hopes to put out there."

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Nearly three years after the recession began, President Obama wants to pass a jobs bill. It's not his first jobs bill, but the others--including the big $800 stimulus plan from 2009--haven't quite done the trick. So Obama is pushing for new tax breaks and cheap, government-backed loans for small businesses, with the hope that easier credit and a bit more take-home pay will spur them to hire more workers.

[See 11 ways to plan for a double-dip recession.]

Don't expect much. Some businesses would benefit from the new moves, but government policies aren't the reason that hiring is so weak. Companies are refusing to hire mainly because business is down and they don't need additional workers. They'll start hiring again when business picks up and they need more people to help meet demand for whatever product or service they sell. For that to happen, consumers need to spend more money, employment needs to be stronger, and people need to feel more confident about their job security, incomes, and future prospects. Washington's solution for all this is tax breaks and guaranteed loans, because those are the tools that Washington has to work with. But it's like trying to hammer a nail with the handle of a pliers.

The economy will mend in time, as Americans pay down excessive debt, save more money, and rebuild lost wealth. But the midterm elections are coming soon, and desperate Democrats need to show that they're working hard to get Americans back to work (and retain control of Congress). Here are three things President Obama could do that might be more effective than the same old tax credits and loan guarantees:

Act like a business owner, not a technocrat. There are a few companies that have been run like the U.S. government, with weak spending controls, unsustainable debt loads, and no credible plan for getting out of trouble. Some examples: General Motors (bankrupt in 2009); Lehman Brothers (bankrupt in 2008); and AIG (taken over by the government in 2008 to forestall bankruptcy). Companies hoping to stay in business, by contrast, only borrow money they can pay back, and when they take on debt they issue detailed reports to shareholders about how they plan to invest the money and earn a return on the investment. If shareholders don't trust company leaders, they sell the stock and the company's value declines.

[See the 5 economic flubs that will cost Democrats most.]

Obama has acknowledged the problem with the national debt and set up a commission to make recommendations, but he's also expanded the government's reach and pumped up the debt--with no corresponding cuts in government or a plan of his own to balance the books. The problem isn't the debt itself; it's the total lack of discipline in Washington and the failure to put a solution on the table. That has created the impression that Washington can't solve tough problems and that the government is indeed a basket case like GM or AIG. "If they gave us confidence that their own house was in order and they're not completely out of control, then we would have more confidence in our businesses," says Gene Marks, who runs a 10-person technology consulting firm outside of Philadelphia. "When deficits go up somebody has to pay, and that's going to be us."

Obama can't literally run the country like a business, since his "board of directors" includes 535 politicians, many of them hostile to his plans. But he could lead like a competent CEO. That means proposing his own solution to the debt problem, no matter how unpopular, and giving his shareholders--taxpayers--a credible turnaround plan. Hopefully Obama has learned that "trust me" won't work. Telling the truth about what it will take to pay down the debt might.

[See when the tax hikes are coming.]

Stop the 'reforms.' Obama has vision and the guts to pursue big things. But he's gotten too far ahead of the people he's trying to help. Healthcare reform was historic, like it or hate it, then came financial reform, less historic but still significant. And Obama still wants energy reform, immigration reform, and lesser reforms bound to raise somebody's cost of doing business. Obama likes to say that government can do more than one thing at once, but many businesses--especially small businesses--can't. It will still take months and perhaps years before most companies know how the new healthcare and financial laws will affect them. To somebody running a business that's barely profitable, more paperwork and a few added regulatory expenses can mean the difference between staying in business or going belly up.

[See how to tell if your company's a loser.]

Obama should acknowledge that and say he's going to wait until the impact of all the new rules are completely spelled out before considering any additional rules that would impact business. That's probably going to happen anyway, since the expected Republican surge in the November elections would freeze action on Obama's remaining priorities. But Obama could call his own moratorium on small business regulations first, perhaps earning a little goodwill from business owners in the process. Better yet, how about a small-business task force with the mission to cut red tape by 30 or 40 percent in one year or less? Obama could do that without Congressional approval, and finally put some action behind all the rhetoric about how important small businesses are. It might not even cost anything.

Show some guts about the Bush tax cuts. It's hard to overstate the incompetence of a government that can't even tell its citizens what their tax rate will be over the coming year. Yet in the midst of a grueling economic downturn, most Americans have to guess what their tax rate will be in the future, since the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010 and there's no agreement about what to do next. For this dysfunctional situation we can mostly thank President Bush, who gave voters the benefits of a tax cut during his eight years, without cutting spending or making any provision whatsoever to account for the lost government revenue. Now Obama has to come up with a solution, and judging by his infrequent and tepid remarks on the issue, it's not that big of a deal to him.

[Bookmark the U.S. News Business & Economy site for more insight and advice.]

But it is to businesses, which need to estimate their future costs so they can set pricing, manage inventory, and otherwise plan for the future. And for many small-business owners, their personal income and business income are the same, so they're directly affected by the direction of income taxes. Obama wants to keep the tax cuts in place for most people, while letting them expire for higher earners, effectively raising upper-income taxes. Another option is to simply extend the cuts for another year or two, and deal with them when the economy is in better shape.

But resolving the matter soon is becoming more important than the actual direction of taxes, and Obama should use the bully pulpit of the White House to insist that Congress act on the tax cuts before anything else. The best outcome might be a short, temporary extension that leaves current tax rates in place, accompanied by a detailed plan that explains what Washington will do next. But that would take the kind of political courage not typically found in Washington these days. So prepare for obscure tax credits that few companies will claim, government loans for businesses that don't want more debt, and perplexed politicians who continue to wonder why businesses aren't hiring.

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook