A Christmas Tree tax
By Norman Leahy | Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 | PolicyNow that the elections are (mostly) behind us, the time has come to consider the news in the rest of the world, and there we find that the federal government is going to be slapping a tax on Christmas Trees.
That’s the short hand version. The longer explanation, from the Federal Register, goes like this:
This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The Order will establish a national Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board) comprised of 11 producers and one importer. Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees will pay an initial assessment of fifteen cents per Christmas tree. Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. A referendum will be conducted, among producers and importers, three years after the collection of assessments begin to determine if Christmas tree producers and importers favor the continuation of this program.
So it would apply to big dealers, not little ones, it’s temporary and authorized under an old piece of legislation, so everything is just fine.
Except, as Sen. Jim DeMint says, this is really just another example of crony capitalism at work:
So why should the government-funded Christmas Tree Promotion Board tax us to fund a marketing campaign? So the Christmas tree industry can pocket the $2 million they now won’t have to spend marketing their trees.
That’s it. That’s the whole purpose of the Obama Christmas Tree Tax: to take money from hard-working families celebrating Christmas and give it to clever lobbyists and businessmen running a crony-capitalist subsidy scam.
And while this policy will, by design, help one group of people, it will hurt others: businesses that sell artificial Christmas trees, people who work at your local stores that sell them, and, don’t forget, the consumers who are out 15 cents a tree.
I really doubt most families will miss those 15 cents. But the cost to principle is quite high. The federal government already helps many very large corporations with their marketing at home and overseas. It offers loans, loan guarantees and other sweeteners to help those same companies sell their goods and services.
That’s corporate welfare. It’s inexcusable, as is putting more companies on the dole.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
16 Responses to "A Christmas Tree tax"
Lets see… they have kicked Jesus out of the Christmas Manger and have made him a cultural fugitive, renamed Christmas to “The Holidays” or “Kwanza” depending on your preference, tried to take the name “God” off our money and are now taxing “Christmas” trees to reward some corporate business cronies. Where is OWS marching with their hanging Christmas Tree effigies when you need them?
And now, Obama has called off the “Christmas Tree ‘Fee’” given that lots of people are complaining. This seems to be the only way to move the Administration to walk back some of its stupidity, although it isn’t working with Obamacare.
I’m tempted to print your comment out and frame it…
From the Heritage Foundation: “Nobody is saying President Obama doesn’t have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax — his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.”
I am saying he does not have authority to do so. If that legislation indeed allows an executive to arbitrarily authorize taxes, fees, or scutage upon producers, without their ever having a representative voice in the matter, someone needs to take a look at the constitutionality of it.
I am glad he “called it off,” but I can’t help but think that this legislation will be cited to impose taxes on less sentimental products.
We shouldn’t be cutting down live trees, so what’s the big deal?
We also should not be harvesting live vegetables!
I have to come down on the other side of the argument. Virginia has a alcohol tax on wine that was going directly into the General Fund before Gov. Bob was elected. One of his campaign promises to our wine industry was that he would fence a portion of that tax for promotion of the Virginia wine industry. He kept his promise and the annual budget for the Virginia Wine Council has grown from about $500K to well over $1.5M, money that has been used to expand demand for Virginia wine and most likely increasing revenues for (and tax payments from) associated industries. A modest tax on an industry’s products that is spent to promote that industry is not such a bad thing, even if Obama thought of it.
I do not know what the big gripe is here, I seem to recall, while traveling out in the midwest that there are similar fees placed on other producers, such as on pork, milk, corn, soybeans under what is commonly called a Check-Off program.
I’m not saying these programs are not without controversy, however there does seem to be fairly firm majority support for them from amongst those who are paying them.
As for constitutionality, the beef Check-Off was challenged in the courts and in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.
@Rocky: Did Gov McDonnell impose/authorize a NEW tax, or simply reallocate funds of an already-existing tax?
Norm,
I agree with your analysis, the Federal government is trying to promote living Christmas trees as opposed to artificial Christmas trees.
However, while you and Jim Demint see it as an anti-Christmas tax – hurting families and helping lobbyists, I see a big distinction: domestic jobs vs. foreign jobs. Maybe you’re not picking up or or don’t agree with: most living trees are from the US and Canada and artificial trees are from China or other Asian nations. It appears that our government is trying to promote American made/grown which, given our trade imbalance and unemployment rate maybe isn’t such a bad idea. Not saying that it’s going to work but I wouldn’t be against the concept behind it.
If the industry is supporting it why shouldn’t the Federal Government facilitate it? It appears that producers and importers of less that 500 trees would be exempt, so in effect the tax really isn’t on an individual or family buying the tree but on the business and company growing or importing trees, right? That tax might be passed along to the consumer, but as you said, $0.15 isn’t going to impact any one person or family. If the industry is essentially taxing themselves to promote their product and industry, is there anything wrong with that?
@LittleDavid: That case was decided on a First Amendment argument (and its “authority” that was cited was before the legislation in question); the question of whether or not the executive department has authority to arbitrarily authorize new taxes was not challenged. It was only over the question of Government Speech.
That a cabinet member (in your case, the Secretary of Agriculture) has presumed authority to advocate the granting of others’ property, without the direct or indirect consent of the people, to the state should cause every liberty-minded person to cringe and cling fast to whatever they may still be allowed to call their own.
Good point, Andrew. The two situations are not analogous and I knew that. I just wanted to point out that taxation is not necessarily evil when it is used to benefit the source rather than used for income redistribution. Consider the Defense budget. A portion of our Federal income taxes are spent to “ensure the common Defense.” My only problem with that is that 47% of our workers pay no income taxes but enjoy a “common Defense.”
Andrew,
Correction: every liberty minded person should cringe at the Patriot Act.
Rocky
“Obama thought of it”
For most of the people posting here and on the right, that is the problem.
Once the Republicans are able to get over that then maybe there will be progress, somewhere, somehow. Obviously I would like to see Obama re-elected. Not just for the obvious reasons: I cannot wait to see his unrestrained interactions with Republicans as a lame duck.
@Rocky: I definitely agree that taxes have their place; I just want my property to be granted through a representative process, where either I or my representative have a vote–not an arbitrary process where Mr. Obama, or his appointees, are the only deciding voices.
@ToR: I agree with you on the invasive parts of the Patriot Act, but that’s not all it is, so I would qualify that statement a little more than space permits.
Did anyone care to check with the National Christmas Tree Association had to say?
”
The National Christmas Tree Association is pleased that the USDA has announced a final rule on the creation of a Christmas Tree Promotion, Research and Information Order,
commonly known as a “Checkoff.”
This program was requested by the industry in 2009 and has gone through two industrywide comment periods during which 565 comments were submitted from interested parties. More than 70% of the growers posting comments, and nearly 90% of the state and multi-state associations that posted comments indicated that they were in favor of the program. A group
of Christmas Tree farmers and retailers spent nearly three years studying the potential positives and negatives of a checkoff promotion and research program, including looking at other commodities that have similar programs.
The program is designed to benefit the industry and will be funded by the growers at a rate of 15 cents per tree sold. The program will be administered by an independent 12-member
board of small business owners who grow and sell farm-grown Christmas trees and they will be responsible for developing and approving promotional and research efforts to benefit the entire industry. The program is not expected to have any impact on the final price consumers pay for their Christmas tree. The funds collected after this season will be used to develop promotion and research programs for the 2012 season.
This program was developed under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. There are at least 18 other similar programs already in effect for various agricultural commodities. Although smaller in scope, the Christmas tree program will be similar to recognizable programs for milk, cotton and beef that have brought consumers commodity-oriented messages such as “Got Milk?” and “Beef, It’s what’s for dinner.”
”
http://www.christmastree.org/11_PR7.pdf
I think the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, Norm, and anyone else who jumped to conclusions and accused the Obama administration of enacting a new tax needs to recant and apologize. You showed your true colors. According to the NCTA this story is incorrect.
Here’s your “research” program… Tree vendors set up around Thanksgiving and the pretty ones get bought, the ugly ones don’t. Tree vendors order for next year and they order more pretty trees and less ugly ones. Christmas tree farms plant more pretty tress and less ugly ones to meet market demand for pretty trees. The market should drive industry behavior to promote or research their products, not taxes collected by the government and spent on boondoggles complete with the associated bureaucracy. Solyndra comes to mind….
Leave your response