RoR: Forum

... so I was working a Federal project and one day, I went to lunch with a guy from my agency who was also a deacon in his church. Goading him, I asked if he did not think that it violated the separation of church and state for us to have Christmas off as a religious holiday. He turned to me and said, "Do you really think that Christmas is a religious holiday??" I had to concede the point.

On the point here, you realize of course that the 15-cent Christmas Tree Tax is necessary to fund the program, lest it contribute the the Federal deficit.

Silly though this is, absent any putative Objectivist-Wiccan fusionism, my personal recommendation is to forego the tree.

Post 1

Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 5:53pm

...the 15-cent Christmas Tree Tax is necessary to fund the program, lest it contribute the the Federal deficit.

Michael, you seem to have gone over the edge... you are supporting a tax, saying it prevents increasing the deficit? Have you gone as daft as the liberals? Instead, why not simply forego this new federal program - this PR program to improve the image of the Christmas tree? To point out the obvious, it hardly seems necessary for the defense of individual rights, nor is it a constitutionally authorized mandate.

...absent any putative Objectivist-Wiccan fusionism, my personal recommendation is to forego the tree.

That is your ethical, political analysis?

Post 2

Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 6:33pm

The administration cancelled the plan on Wednesday, the day after they announced it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

Post 3

Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 10:00pm

Yes, I said that, if you bothered to read my comments.

Post 4

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 3:10am

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

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.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

Post 5

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 6:47am

MEM shared:

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.

Crony capitalism.

Will the artificial tree lobby now seek its own leverage of the appropriate "alphabet soup" agency?

Post 6

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 10:46am

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.

Who cares which administration was in power when the tree lobby proposed their tax. What is interesting is that this administration was willing to try to put it in practice by executive fiat, and to make that attempt when we are still in a suffering economy and taxes are a hot-button issue.

But this isn't the first private organization to ask that it be taxed. I remember a California phone company lobbying the state to institute a tax to fund phone access for the poor. The real story was that the phone company had done research showing that their greatest losses were from the continuing attempt to collect behind payments from those in the lower socioeconomic level, and the expense of connecting and disconnecting.

Post 7

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 1:16pm

Let the free market reign, if sales of christmas trees are falling there is a reason, let the industry stand or fall on its own merits.

What's next? Obama handing out a government bailout to christmas tree harvesters because they are no longer economically viable?

...uhg same people must work for gm.

Post 8

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 8:23pm

I remember a California phone company lobbying the state to institute a tax to fund phone access for the poor. The real story was that the phone company had done research showing that their greatest losses were from the continuing attempt to collect behind payments from those in the lower socioeconomic level, and the expense of connecting and disconnecting.

The phone company should be able to require payment up front before installing the service for those customers with a poor credit history, or for those with no previous credit history. Of course, that might be considered invidious discrimination unless it was applied universally to everyone including those with good credit.

Post 9

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 9:44pm