Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax
In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).The tax is $0.15 per tree - which typically run anywhere from $20 - $40, at least around here. The actual amount is immaterial - right now it's a miniscule portion of the total cost and will be utterly lost in the transaction compared to sales tax (5-9%) - it's the concept. It would be a herculean task to find an object that needs less "image enhancement" than a Christmas tree - to those who find it offensive/too Christian/etc. the only good Christmas tree is a dead Christmas tree, to misuse a metaphor.
What's objectionable is the idea that a tax is palatable simply because the funds collected allegedly will be used towards an agreeable end. For starters, there's simply no guarantee that any of those funds will ever go towards the intended goal - one need look no further than the tobacco settlements to see that in action. Also, there's the thorny question of what constitutes an "agreeable" end - especially in light of the view of a "Christmas" tree as a religious object that should not be touched by the state at all.
And, of course, there's the dichotomy of "we're going to enhance the image of [item X] by raising the price!"...
That is all.
13 comments:
For a man touted as the World's Smartest Black Man, the President sure is tone-deaf at times, ain't he? Who in his right mind would institute a tax on Christmas Trees just as Christmas season is getting underway?
You know, when the pork people need to improve their image they ran that whole "the other white meat" thing. Worked pretty good.
But they didn't get the Federal Government to tax people to run those ads. They formed a trade organization and collect from their own members, privately.
If Christmas Tree people want to run ads they can form their own trade org.
You don't need Uncle Sam to hold your hand. He's a bit bossy and a creeper, anyway.
The odd thing to me is if this is a tax to promote natural Christmas trees, why tax the people buying natural Christmas trees instead of the people buying artificial trees?
My objection is simple: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Does that asshole at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue even get the clue that he has to follow the laws, or is he special somehow?
1/20/13: The End of an Error!
NJT: It's possible the Department of Ag was behind the "other white meat" program. Another article I saw on this same topic said DofA had conducted similar programs for beef, pork, and dairy (and specifically named the "Got Milk?" campaign).
But this kind of thing should be run by trade associations, not the government. It's not like we keep a strategic Christmas tree reserve.
Okay, the thought of a "Strategic Christmas tree reserve" just kicked over my giggle box something fierce...
I wonder how many of the Christmas Tree growers do a cash only business?
This tax would have them reporting income.
YAFUGA. Yet Another Fu...err... Friendly Useless Government Agency.
Guess they solved all the other problems facing the country, and are scrambling to find ways to justify their budgets, or something.
Fuck me, with Herman Cain under attack I was bracing myself for four more years of Obama....at this rate its going to be four more years of Biden as Zero takes the Nixon Standing 8-Count in the wake of pending impeachment.
Quoting from Tam's Hoosieropolis neighbor, writer Michael Z. Williamson wrote in his novel "Contact with Chaos" (part of the Freehold Saga) the following: "I have no problem with Capitalism, provided they raise the Capital themselves. No Free Lunch."
So let's see now. Natural Trees don't hurt Mother Gaia, Artificial Trees are made from Oil, Michigan has one of the largest Christmas Tree Industries in the Country, Obama need all the Votes he can get, yep, it's "Your Federal Tax Dollars at Work for Cronism!"
Leaving aside the whole Church/State issue, what about Separation of Powers. The exectuive branch can't tax excrement. That is CONGRESS' job. Specifically the House.
I believe the word you're looking for is "jizya."
And, of course, there's the dichotomy of "we're going to enhance the image of [item X] by raising the price!"...
Devil's advocate: this particular bit isn't a dichotomy, and is sound business sense. Advertising isn't free; commercials are paid for by raising the price of the commodity to the consumer. Private companies enhance the image of item X by raising its price all the time, and it seems to work out fine.
The rest, though, right on. If nothing else, this is a symptom of proliferation of government into places where it just isn't needed.
Most of the natural tree growers want an ad campaign, so they go running to the feds to force the rest of the growers to go along with the plan... And none of the hundred thousand federal employees at USDA seems to think this is an improper use of their authority. Madness.
Post a Comment