In past decades, so-called "black lists" have been reserved for the supposedly sinister elements of society, like Joe Namath or anyone who wrote anything remotely interesting/original in the years immediately following World War II. People who were thought to be somehow "different" or a "threat" could find themselves forever marked as outsiders, unwelcome in society's more august establishments. Well times have changed, now it isn't just random longhairs or "fellow travelers" who are being ostracized...it's entire cities.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that several cities are no longer considered suitable conference destinations for federal agencies. According to an email written by an FBI employee and obtained by The Journal, "The Department of Justice decided conferences are not to be held in cities that are vacation destinations/spa/resort/gambling. Las Vegas and Orlando are the first two on the chopping block."

Outside of breaking the hearts of those who love both cities, albeit probably not equally, putting Mickey and Wayne "on the chopping block" just seems, well un-American. We should expect this type of government ban from Communist China, not the flamboyant Uncle Sam whose attire is reminiscent of a Vegas showgirl!

A DOJ spokesperson confirmed the policy to the Journal saying, "We do have guidance that says [to] avoid locations and accommodations that give the appearance of being lavish or are resort destinations." So there you go, breakfast with Cinderella is officially too rich for the FBI's blood. Maybe Wasilla, AK will finally get that tourist bump they've been hoping like heck for.

An anonymous Agriculture Department employee noted that his agency had issued travel guidelines similar to those in place at DOJ. The source claimed that employees are "encouraged to hold meetings in cities that display three key attributes: a travel hub; low in cost; and a ‘non-resort location.'" The employee went on to name cities such as Milwaukee, Denver, St. Louis, and Ft. Collins, Colorado as acceptable destinations.

To some officials, this policy is more about dollars and cents than denying federal employees the chance to experience Celine Dion live. "To ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars, we are continually reviewing and eliminating unnecessary travel and encouraging staff to instead use videoconferencing," Agriculture spokesman Justin DeJong told the Journal.

Geoff Freeman of the U.S. Travel Association, a travel industry lobbying group, told The Journal that "in the quest to demonize travel, we're killing jobs." Of course, no one is trying to demonize the entire concept of traveling, just traveling to any place where you can play a hand of blackjack before you've brushed your teeth in the morning.

Count the Governor of Nevada among those none too thrilled with the travel restrictions. Calling the no-travel list "an outrageous insult to the working families in Nevada," Governor Jim Gibbons blasted the policy in a written statement. Gibbons went on to defend his state's most famous city by declaring that he is "working hard to get more jobs and more tourists for Nevada to help our economy recover, and the Obama administration seems to be completely unaware of the damage they are causing to Nevada's economy and the people here." There was no mention of increasing the employment rosters of the world's oldest profession, however.

At a time where the lavish spending habits of everyone from Vice Presidential candidates to AIG executives comes under scrutiny from both the public and the press, can anyone really blame the federal government for wanting to cut back on taxpayer-subsidized road trips? Governor Gibbons and Mr. Freeman's righteous indignation aside, this policy probably isn't a means for the Obama administration to carry out its super secret plan to bankrupt the hotel industry and drive all the cocktail waitresses in Vegas into unemployment.

In the past, the federal government has been taken to task for its wasteful spending habits, and deservedly so. But when it tries to save some serious money by cutting back on luxurious and unnecessary travel expenses it is accused of trying to kill a $240 billion industry; it's a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition. At the end of the day, both the federal government and the U.S. tourism industry can probably survive without a planeload of FBI agents getting sunburned at the Caesar's Palace pool. On the other hand, should it really be up to the government to dictate where event planners can or cannot throw conferences? After all, they need a little TLC sometimes too.