Obama Is A Grinch

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! This is funny. A tax on Christmas trees to fund a federal program to promote Christmas trees. You can't make this stuff up.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/...tmas-tree-tax/

[TexTushHog]

Very common. That's the sort of agricultural advertising support program that has funded the "Beef. It's what's for dinner," campaign and the "Got milk?" milk mustache campaigns. Also the "Incredible, edible, egg" campaign.

Producers were initially very reluctant in the be taxed for the program. But now the consensus seems to be that they are well worth the money.

[gnadfly]

wow. 15 cents a tree. Why even bother? Say even 20MM trees cut, that $3MM. That's going to be spent on collection and assurance.

TTH I don't believe any of your examples were govt funded but rather funded by the industry.

[CuteOldGuy]

It simply illustrates how ridiculous our federal government has become.

[TexTushHog]

Look at the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996.

[Laz]

It is DUMB. While it may be legal it is just another example of the gov getting involved where it is not needed. If the industry needs an advertising fund let them create and manage one.

[I B Hankering]

Nothing new.

[Whirlaway]

Joe Biden is the real grinch; although he has his wife made $319,000, they only gave $369 in charitable contributions.........these cheap Democrats live well on the government dole (taxpayers), preach to us about being more charitable to the underprivilaged, demand more taxes from hard working citizens, and are actually cheapskates when it comes to their own personal finances !

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...inancial_N.htm

[CuteOldGuy]

WW, you don't understand. LIberals have more empathy than the rest of us, which is why they want government to provide charity, not individuals. It's a sign of their higher evolution than the rest of us.

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, I guess the Grinch grew a heart.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...tmas-tree-fee/

[ftime]

Typical reaction by know nothings. This tax proposal was driven by the Christmas tree growers. The government should NEVER listen to constituents if it means new taxes - right? Get a grasp.

The White House has decided to sideline a proposed fee on Christmas trees, after the fee was ridiculed by critics as a tax on Christmas.
The 15-cent tax on [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Christmas [COLOR=blue !important]trees[/COLOR][/COLOR] was announced Tuesday in the Federal Register and was meant to pay for a new board tasked with promoting the Christmas tree industry. It was supported by Christmas tree growers, who wanted a stable source of revenue to fund a new marketing campaign.


But the change quickly drew complaints from Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and others. Scalise described the fee as a "Grinch" move by the Obama administration and vowed to fight it.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1dF2MkNKH[/COLOR]

[CuteOldGuy]

The Christmas tree industry doesn't need government to promote them. They can do that on their own.

[TheDaliLama]

Now we know why BO put the 86 on it.

He doesn't want anyone to think he supports Christmas.

[gnadfly]

Perhaps if the Federal govt put a Christmas Tree in each lobby of their courthouse buildings it will help promote the Chris...er, wait.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Christmas tree industry doesn't need government to promote them. They can do that on their own.

The government doesn't do the promotion. The government assesses the fee, then the industry board does the promotion. The tax simply eliminated the free rider problem of some producers not contributing to the promotion fund, but benefiting from the promotion efforts.

Just like:
"Beef. It's what's for dinner."
"Got milk?"
"The incredible, edible egg." and
"Pork, the other white meat." campaigns.

These have all been very successful campaigns that have helped agricultural producers in the respective industries. But if you make the contributions voluntary, then everybody has an incentive not to contribute but let others pay their way. Simple ECON 1301.

And frankly, the government doesn't give a shit. It makes no money on the program. The funds are passed right back to the producers association. The administration did just what they should have done. The growers association asked them to do it, so they did. But then when it caused a problem, they said, "Nope, we're not taking any political heat for your people," and killed it. There was nothing in it for the government other than helping out growers. So fuck it! Let them sell fewer trees.