A Tax On Christmas Trees In Order To Promote Christmas Trees? Thanks, Mr. President
    By Hank Campbell | November 8th 2011 09:26 PM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Only government could come up with this ingenious plan: President Obama’s Agriculture Department has announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of... Christmas trees.

    Yes, that's right, if you buy a Christmas tree you are apparently still unconvinced how awesome they are so the government must tax you, waste half just by being government, then spend the other half wastefully marketing Christmas trees to everyone.

    But more taxes during a recession are bad, right?  I mean, unless they are for those people making $200K a year and their private jets and stuff?  This isn't a tax, they say, if you listen to the same Jedi-mind-trick logic that they used to say the stimulus plan of 2009 was not wasted because it 'saved' jobs.  Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman says the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government”.

    So Christmas tree sellers have a choice?  No, nor do they have a choice about what is done with the money they are forced to pay, namely marketing Christmas trees.  It won't be gross incompetence that causes Pres. Obama to lose to one of the circle of goofballs current lobbying to be the Republican candidate, it will be the audacity with which his administration goes about being incompetent that will shock his side into staying home and helping the other side win

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    Hmmmm ... let's hear it for the "free market"?
    Mundus vult decipi
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    From ABC news:
    White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told ABC News that despite some media coverage, “I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees. What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign.”
    So this would not have been a direct tax, "That tree cost $15 plus $0.15, please", but a milk is manifestly more expense so I can see all the "Got Milk" ads played by the milk factories. This is DOA. Back to real news, like China kicking our ass in CO2 emissions growth.
    Hank
    The government should not be collecting money from anyone, handing it over to someone else, and not calling it a tax.  A government spin artist saying it isn't the government keeping it, they are just the ones collecting it and redistributing it, doesn't feel terribly authentic.

    Nice of ABC News to go all Pravda about it, though.
    Hank
    The Obama Administration has told the USDA to yank the tax they said they were never collecting in the first place.  They clarified that an industry group had asked them to collect the tax they were not collecting, it was not a government idea, they were just doing what the Christmas tree industry wanted them to do to hold off the onslaught of Big Artificial Tree.
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    Should we have to pay a phony tax for the Artificial Tree industry? How about big bucks for big augmentation surgery? No, those folks don't need our support.

    How about no marketing of any agriculture product - I would be all for that.
    Hank
    They can market if they want - some goofy pretense that industry asks the government to make it mandatory to be 'fair' is silly.  We subsidize dairy and then charge them to market it; it's the perfect government system but dumb in the real world so, yes, government should be out of that business too.