I think the letter is (probably mostly) BS, after giving it a little thought.
First of all, saying that businesses with no hands in the bailout till are canceling legit travel is an easy thing to say, but what proof can you really give? It's hard for me to imagine a hotel agent asking a client why his company is cancelling their weekend pow-wow and being told that the PRIMARY reason (as opposed to something just mentioned in the conversation) is because they don't want to be made fun of on C-SPAN.
Secondly, if these companies are cancelling legitimate trips because of populist-talking reps and senators, they're just too darn sensitive. All of the criticism I've heard from Congress has been aimed at companies that DID take the money, and have thus fully earned the right to be criticized for how they're spending it. So far (and let me know if I've missed it), I have yet to hear anybody in Washington criticize a company that isn't being subsidized by taxpayers for its travel expense sheet. Yeah, there's a lot of general talk about "corporate greed" and whatnot, but are you telling me that's enough to make people with MBA's cancel their trips? They know how politics works, and they know a lot of it is just blowing enough smoke to make the people back home happy.
So I'm not buying the argument that businesses are canceling travel because of "rhetoric." That's just stupid to me, and makes businesspeople sound like children who hole up in their rooms because they can't figure out whether mommy or daddy is really mad at them.
No, the "rhetoric" business is, I suspect, just an obligatory public show of solidarity that's just as meaningless and hollow as the alternative talk coming from Capitol Hill. It's BS, essentially, albeit BS that's an important part of the public posturing that needs to take place here.
I still think the only part of the letter that REALLY matters is the bit toward the end, where the execs ask Congress not to mandate new regulations for business travel and basically let businesses police themselves. That's where they know they could take a REAL hit that would be lasting and significant, depending on what the rules are. The rest is just fluff designed to get people to take sides. Based on this thread, it seems to have done the job.
First of all, saying that businesses with no hands in the bailout till are canceling legit travel is an easy thing to say, but what proof can you really give? It's hard for me to imagine a hotel agent asking a client why his company is cancelling their weekend pow-wow and being told that the PRIMARY reason (as opposed to something just mentioned in the conversation) is because they don't want to be made fun of on C-SPAN.
Secondly, if these companies are cancelling legitimate trips because of populist-talking reps and senators, they're just too darn sensitive. All of the criticism I've heard from Congress has been aimed at companies that DID take the money, and have thus fully earned the right to be criticized for how they're spending it. So far (and let me know if I've missed it), I have yet to hear anybody in Washington criticize a company that isn't being subsidized by taxpayers for its travel expense sheet. Yeah, there's a lot of general talk about "corporate greed" and whatnot, but are you telling me that's enough to make people with MBA's cancel their trips? They know how politics works, and they know a lot of it is just blowing enough smoke to make the people back home happy.
So I'm not buying the argument that businesses are canceling travel because of "rhetoric." That's just stupid to me, and makes businesspeople sound like children who hole up in their rooms because they can't figure out whether mommy or daddy is really mad at them.
No, the "rhetoric" business is, I suspect, just an obligatory public show of solidarity that's just as meaningless and hollow as the alternative talk coming from Capitol Hill. It's BS, essentially, albeit BS that's an important part of the public posturing that needs to take place here.
I still think the only part of the letter that REALLY matters is the bit toward the end, where the execs ask Congress not to mandate new regulations for business travel and basically let businesses police themselves. That's where they know they could take a REAL hit that would be lasting and significant, depending on what the rules are. The rest is just fluff designed to get people to take sides. Based on this thread, it seems to have done the job.
