The Obama administration has announced that they will delay implementation of a recently announced 15 cent Christmas tree tax. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...tion-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/A Christmas Tree tax to create a commision to promote Christmas Trees? Seriously? Typical boneheaded move by an administration that sees government as the solution to every problem. Of course, further research reveals the story is a bit more complicated than that. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/gop-fingerprints-on-the-christmas-tree-tax/So, rather than a partisan club to beat Obama with, we have an example of rent seeking by special interests and a government (whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans) happy to oblige.......for the right price, of course.
Reminds me of this song.... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8qWrCA&usg=AFQjCNE3RQerCWFZuPRPnMq3R1c4-5Th_w
ah yes more right wing hysteria from the folks who voted in the people responsible for creating the economic pitfalls we face today
I don't share your grim world view Now this is an interesting take. The most sinister industrial motive I see could be an attempt to consolidate the industry; to bring in all the independent tree farmers under corporate banners. But that seems a bit cynical, doesn't it? Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration. In February 2008, faced with declining sales, members of the National Christmas Tree Association created a task force to consider the merits of a checkoff program, which would allow the USDA to collect a fee from growers in order to fund research into marketing Christmas trees. NCTA officials explained: While the fake tree industry is investing dollars to vigorously promote their product, the Real Tree industry is pulling back and devoting fewer funds to public relations and marketing. More than 1,000 people donated more than $900,000 for 2004 promotion and marketing programs. By 2007, donations to the market expansion activities had dropped to about $400,000. The erosion of funding resulted in fewer projects aimed at positively impacting consumer attitudes about Real Trees limiting the ability of the industry to affect the sales of Real Trees in the marketplace. Given this continued erosion of the market share of farm-grown Christmas Trees, an industry task force is being formed to study the possibility of a federal marketing order that could establish a nationwide checkoff designed to support expanded promotion, marketing and research projects. The NCTA Board of Directors supports the industry task force study of a federal marketing order. Even if the industry decides to pursue a nationwide checkoff, it takes at least a year for USDA to follow its "rule making procedures." Thus, it is highly unlikely that a checkoff could start before 2010. In the interim, NCTA will engage in an aggressive promotion and protection program as funds allow. The NCTA board urges members and non-members to be involved in the discussion and will schedule a town hall discussion at the 2008 national convention at which time the task force will give a report. (Holden) In 2008, one Mary Gruber wrote for Christmas Trees magazine: Examples of other agricultural commodity Checkoffs include the egg, beef, pork, mushroom, milk, and honey, etc. industries. We’re all familiar with the Dairy industry’s ad campaigns; “Milk Does a Body Good” and “Got Milk.” “Pork: the Other White Meat,” “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” and “The Incredible Edible Egg” are recognizable slogans developed and funded by Checkoff programs. These four ‘big guns’ collect between $45 and $91.2 million in assessments annually. Funding for promotions and research comes from within each industry. Fees could be assessed for example, in the Christmas tree industry, on a percentage of the selling price, per cut tree or per seedling basis. The amount of the assessment, who would participate, how the fees would be collected and how utilized, would be determined by the industry taskforce with the input of growers and attendees at the National Convention. Fresh imports (mainly from Canada) would be assessed at a comparable rate. As in other agricultural industries there would be exemptions for smaller growers. If the assessment is made on a cut tree basis, 4,000 trees has been discussed as a minimum. A percentage of the amount collected could go to state associations in proportion to the amount paid from within that state. The state association could utilize the funds for promotion and research abiding by the same rules as the national Checkoff organization. Hugh [Whaley] anticipates that Christmas tree assessments would be comparable to the amount raised by the blueberry industry, which is $2 million. I mean, I knew this one was coming, and I thank you for taking a slightly unexpected tack on this one, but it seems this checkoff program is the industry's own doing and desire. If I am determined to find something to fret about, then certainly I can grumble about "special interests" and an obliging government, but that's the thing: What, aside from a dying industry, would the special interests be trying to claim? Where I used to live in Oregon, we were once surrounded by Christmas trees. There was much pride one year when a local tree went to the White House. Now there are two-thousand square foot, ugly houses as far as the eye can see where one of the farms was. And a brand new, overstated Latter Day temple where another was. I was excited to find one farther west on the north slope of the valley turned into a winery. I'm pretty sure the par three course just up the road from there was once a tree farm. It's a dying industry. They're getting clobbered. Thinking of Gruber's point—"Milk: It does a body good", &c.—I almost can't wait to hear what they come up with for Christmas trees. Meanwhile, Checkoffstudy.com is still online, promoting the checkoff for the National Christmas Tree Association. And an Oregon grower checked in a few years ago: I am writing in support of the proposed checkoff program at the highest amount acceptable to the major producers, i.e. up to $0.15 / tree (or the equivalent in gross sales, which is probably a better way to report it). Santa & Sons Christmas Trees would be a willing participant even if the amount were $0.25/tree or the equivalent. With the funds that are collected, I very strongly feel that they should be directed only at marketing, and not for farming research. The reason I feel that way is marketing has been the one place where our industry has historically failed to provide consistent support and we desperately need to manage our product's image, lest our image be managed for us by the artifical tree makers. It also makes the program easier to understand and support for growers. And it is the nationally based nature of the program that makes it it benefit all growers so it is an ideal fit for creating and sustaining a market image for real Christmas trees .... (Rohlfs) And like I said, yeah, if I am determined to find something to fret about. But I do not share with you that determination. Or, more simply: "Why is this cause for concern?" That is, why does anyone need to be blamed? ____________________ Notes: Holden, Jeremy. "Artificial War On Christmas Campaign Launches Fake Obama 'Christmas Tree Tax'". Media Matters for America. November 9, 2011. MediaMatters.org. November 10, 2011. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001 Gruber, Mary. "A Checkoff for the Tree Industry?" Christmas Trees. Fall 2008. ChristmasTreesMagazine.com. November 10, 2011. http://www.christmastreesmagazine.com/articles.shtml Rohlfs, Mark. "Letter of Support". Checkoff Study Growers Speak. June 25, 2008. CheckoffStudy.com. November 10, 2011. http://checkoffstudygrowersspeak.blogspot.com/2008/06/recent-questions.html
This is a cause for concern because Republicans have decided they cannot raise taxes at all for any reason, even if that reason helps people or business.
Exactly. If the NCTA wants to run ads promoting Christmas trees, let them. Why should the federal government be involved? The only reason I can see is that it would force all producers of Christmas Trees to pay up whereas right now it is voluntary. There's no vital national interest here. Government should not be in the business of running advertising campaigns or of forcing people to support industrial organizations such as the NCTA.
The government has been supporting business opportunities for decades. You usually don't notice it, but they support things like science and technological research which is then shared with and developed by private industry. It's funded by tax money, and it's operating at quite a larger scale than Christmas tree farms. No doubt this would be a poorer nation if that didn't happen.
It's because it's Obama, isn't it? I think your argument presumes facts not in evidence and, perhaps, insupportable. In the first place, the Federal Register notes that the, "USDA received a proposal for a national research and promotion program for Christmas trees from the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force". The CTCTF is an industry group, not a governmental task force. Secondly, as I quoted earlier, "The NCTA Board of Directors supports the industry task force study of a federal marketing order". Now, perhaps you overlooked the term; I know I did. A federal marketing order is intended to assist various industrial growth. Again, the Federal Register: The 1996 Act authorizes USDA to establish agricultural commodity research and promotion orders which may include a combination of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information activities funded by mandatory assessments. These programs are designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities. As defined under section 513(1)(D) of the 1996 Act, agricultural commodities include the products of forestry, which includes Christmas trees. The USDA explains: Marketing agreements and orders are legal instruments authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and in subsequent amendments. The Secretary of Agriculture is vested with the power to exercise the use of these instruments to regulate the marketing of eligible commodities -- fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, and milk -- in certain clearly specified ways. Marketing orders help fruit and vegetable growers work together to solve marketing problems that they cannot solve individually. They help balance the availability of quality product with the need for adequate returns to producers and the demands of consumers. Marketing orders are binding on all individuals and businesses who are classified as "handlers" in the geographic area covered by the order. Marketing orders are distinguished from marketing agreements, which are binding only on handlers who are signatories of the agreements. The definition of handler and handling depends on the particular program. As defined in most agreements and orders, a handler is anyone who receives the commodity from producers, grades and packs it, transports, or places the commodity in commercial channels. Handlers must comply with the grade, size, quality, volume, or other requirements established under the program. All marketing orders are initiated by producers. Producers have an active role in the development of program provisions and support them at hearings. Approval by a two-thirds or larger majority (three-fourths of California citrus producers) by number or volume represented in a referendum is required before any program is implemented or amended. That last paragraph is important, as it claims that even marketing orders are initiated by private industry. And, to be certain, in March, USDA announced the termination of marketing orders for peaches and nectarines from California after three industry referenda failed to gather large enough majority support for continuance. In June, USDA announced the continuation of a marketing order for cranberries according to an industry referendum. Now, certainly one can claim that government should stay out of advertising and marketing, but what is your figurative line in the sand? Should federal agencies not promote American businesses at all? Why should diplomats argue trade agreements and policies with other nations? In truth, I think the big problem some folks are having with this is that the marketing order is coming to fruition while Barack Obama is president. ____________________ Notes: Shipman, David R. "Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Referendum Procedures". Federal Register. November 8, 2011. FederalRegister.gov. November 10, 2011. http://www.federalregister.gov/arti...h-and-information-order-referendum-procedures Agricultural Marketing Service. "Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders and Agreements". United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.) AMS.USDA.gov. November 11, 2011. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams...=&page=FVMarketingOrderLandingPage&resultType Fobia, Hakim. "USDA to Terminate Marketing Orders for Nectarines and Peaches". United States Department of Agriculture. March 25, 2011. AMS.USDA.gov. November 11, 2011. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams...opNav=Newsroom&leftNav=&rightNav1=&rightNav2= Sparks, Gwen. "Cranberry Producers Vote to Continue Marketing Order". United States Department of Agriculture. June 30, 2011. AMS.USDA.gov. November 10, 2011. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams...opNav=Newsroom&leftNav=&rightNav1=&rightNav2=
