Do Christmas Trees Really Have An Image Problem?
Are there people out there spewing virulent hatred of Christmas trees? I'm an atheist and I love them. They're pretty. And I wish people would leave Christmas tree lights up all year. They're pretty, too.
I thought this was a story from The Onion, but no, it seems the federal government finds it necessary -- actually, make that nece$$ary -- to promote the image of Christmas trees. From The Foundary, Davis S. Addington writes:
President Obama's Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees--the Christmas Tree Tax--to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.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).
To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.
What the hell is the Federal government doing in involving itself in the promotion of Christmas trees. And seriously, is there a family out there who wasn't going to have a Christmas tree before that will have one now because the government is sticking this "not a tax," as Shipman calls it, on the trees?
Oh, and don't blame the loser Democrats -- without blaming the loser Republicans, and some dumbasses in the Christmas tree-growing industry for bringing in the government to help them deal with competition from the fake tree industry. From Mediaite:
Jeremy Holden of Media Matters, however, explains that this fee was in the works as far back as 2008, before Obama was elected. And it was generated by growers. "Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration," Holden says, "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."
From the Federal Register:
The Christmas tree industry has tried three different times to conduct promotional programs based on voluntary contributions. Each time, after about three years, the revenue declined to a point where the programs were ineffective. The decline in revenue is attributable to the voluntary nature of these programs. Therefore, the proponents have determined that they need a mechanism that would be sustainable over time. They believe that a national Christmas tree research and promotion program would accomplish this goal.
I love the notion that government incompetence is the answer to business incompetence. (If you don't think the government does things rather incompetently, well, we're so sorry about your long coma.)







Trees are already so pricey, wont this mean poor people will be able to afford them even less?
NicoleK at November 9, 2011 8:00 AM
I remember watching a documentary from the 70s about killer Christmas Trees attacking singers of "O Tannenbaum". Did tree sales ever recover from that?
If so, then I agree, this Christmas Tree Promotion Board and the tax seem like the dumbest thing and completely tone deaf as well.
jerry at November 9, 2011 8:23 AM
I prefer the sickly looking trees. Too much Peanuts for me.
MonicaP at November 9, 2011 8:27 AM
I love the very timely Christmas tree add that is in the sidebar! BTW, in 2008 Congress was under the control of the democrats. People tend to forget that.
Sheepmommy at November 9, 2011 8:57 AM
Not much of a fan of Christmas trees. Yes, they're pretty, but is it really necessary to cut down an attractive Scotch pine every year so you can dry it out inside your house?
I would only get a ball tree...I think that's what they're called...with the roots still on them, so you can plant it outside when you're done with it. Then it can be an outdoor tree to decorate next year.
Patrick at November 9, 2011 9:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/09/do_christmas_tr.html#comment-2752905">comment from PatrickPatrick's suggestion is what my neighbors do, basically. They have a tree in a big pot, and when it gets too big to be indoors, they plant it and get another tree and put it in a big pot.
Amy Alkon
at November 9, 2011 9:20 AM
We don't even bother with live trees, we just drag the artificial tree out of the shed every year. No muss, no fuss, and no needles all over the carpet (even though we had a pastor years ago who referred to fake trees as "green toilet brushes").
Maybe my family are the ones the Christmas Tree Promotion Board is targeting. Well, Humbug then!
Old RPM Daddy at November 9, 2011 9:26 AM
OMG this is the lamest thing I have heard all day. WTF? The government has completely lost their collective minds!
Melody at November 9, 2011 9:38 AM
Christmas trees need a image campaign? Congratulations Amy, after all the stuff you've posted here you've finally managed to get my brain to go blue screen of death.
Elle at November 9, 2011 9:47 AM
I saw this on a flash-news screen at the bank and thought it had to be a joke.
momof4 at November 9, 2011 9:48 AM
While I disagree with the 'not a tax', Patrick's reasoning is also one I disagree with, and gets me so fired up every year. Christmas trees are grown as a crop for harvest, like any other vegetable. I'm sure he'd be happier to have all the tree farmers go out of business and sell their land to a subdivision developer where the lots are too small to even plant a scotch pine, let alone one every 2-3 years.
April at November 9, 2011 9:51 AM
why doesn't anyone with brains call stop to the in the govt.? Oh, right, because if you get federal overview then you cna open a new office of. that can hire govt. workers...
OI.
Ultimately this is no difference than corn farmers getting the govt. help from mamagovt.
Next there will be a tree subsidy.
While I like them, and I think the farming of them is a good thing, this kind of stuff is stupid. I take the kids out every black friday to a local farm and cut one down as a tradition. It's also way cheaper and fresher than getting one form an in town lot where they were cut a month or two ago.
SwissArmyD at November 9, 2011 10:12 AM
Amy: "I love the notion that government incompetence is the answer to business incompetence."
I don't know that it is business incompetence; the market just did not want to buy what the business was selling. Where there is no demand for their supply, they use government to create the demand. So, the government forces you to buy what you don't want.
Where Government incompetence comes in is that it has taken 3 years to get this stupid 15-cent tax through the process (and Obamacare got through in months!). Any indictment that blames Bush for this is really an indictment of how inefficiently the government works.
-Jut
JutGory at November 9, 2011 10:17 AM
Just an aside because I don't think I have to address what's obviously ridiculous.
Christmas trees aren't Christian... and I absolutely love them. And I went shopping last night and they have the most gorgeous Christmas lights for outdoor use. I'm ready to go shopping.
NikkiG at November 9, 2011 10:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/09/do_christmas_tr.html#comment-2753133">comment from NikkiGIn fact, I love an indoor tree with decorations on it, and if I had a bigger house, I might have one year-round.
Amy Alkon
at November 9, 2011 10:42 AM
"And I wish people would leave Christmas tree lights up all year."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. That's as tacky as fly paper. That and painting houses primary colors are about the only things I would want CC&Rs against. Everything's got its place. christmas lights outside their season are like pajamas in the cafe.
smurfy at November 9, 2011 12:15 PM
The Got Milk folks should pay attention to this. Just think of how many suckers are still making voluntary contributions to their respective marketing boards.
smurfy at November 9, 2011 12:22 PM
I live in Clackamas County, Oregon. This is one of the largest christmas tree farming regions in the US. I drive down the street to a different farm each year where I get to cut my own tree and haul it away for about $5.00. Most farms have bailing machines and don't charge extra for the service.
Even the hot cocoa and candy canes are complimentary. Business seems good. I see no need for this silly tax.
P.S.,
Like trees grown for paper pulp, most christmas trees are farmed commercially. There is really no need to worry about the environmental impact of buying live trees. It only helps to put food on the table of an American family.
Justin at November 9, 2011 12:32 PM
Just an aside because I don't think I have to address what's obviously ridiculous.
Christmas trees aren't Christian...
***
That's what I was thinking. They originally had nothing to do with Christmas. I once read something about how early European tribes would burn trees in ceremonies to help the sun in its trip during the winter solstice. The timing just worked out for the inclusion of trees with candles or lights into Christmas. Or something like that.
Justin at November 9, 2011 12:41 PM
@NikkiG, et al: "Christmas trees aren't Christian..."
I've been reading a similar comment thread on another blog. The gist of one commenter's argument was that if one means "not Christian" as "not described in the Bible," then that's true. On the other hand, the Christian church has incorporated lots of local customs over the years, though I've never seen a Christmas tree used in a church for anything other than a pretty decoration.
Incidentally, one of my middle daughter's best friends (since moved away) was a Pakistani Muslim girl. Did her family have a Christmas tree in their house? They sure did!
Old RPM Daddy at November 9, 2011 1:42 PM
'christmas lights outside their season are like pajamas in the cafe.'
You are not hispanic. Outlined house, maybe not. But dangling from the patio roof, or spritely in a tree? Lovely.
momof4 at November 9, 2011 2:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/09/do_christmas_tr.html#comment-2753661">comment from momof4Momof4 is right on on Christmas lights. It's one of the things I love about California. Lots of people have them here, including my neighbors, who have them lighting up the side of their porch. A sprinkling of little stars is what it looks like.
Amy Alkon
at November 9, 2011 3:05 PM
http://smokingpolitics.com/2011/11/09/the-christmas-tree-tax-lie/
The industry ASKED for this, it wasn't imposed on them. And they've been working with the Dept of Ag on this since before Obama took office....
jen at November 9, 2011 4:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/09/do_christmas_tr.html#comment-2753853">comment from jenJen, feel free to read the WHOLE blog item!
"And it was generated by growers..."
Amy Alkon
at November 9, 2011 4:53 PM
Acctually christmas trees are mentioned in the bible - the old testement. With a warning that they are false idols and anyone partaking in the custom will go to hell
lujlp at November 9, 2011 5:25 PM
Whose the gonna be the secretary of the Christmas Tree Fund:
Let's see The Grinch would probably have problems making it past the Senate hearings. He has that un-indicted theft that the press widely reported on.
Mr. Scrooge bankrupted his business, so he wouldn't be a good candidate.
======================================
Basically what this is (or will become) is a power grab by the Christmas Tree, Arbor Day, or other similar group. The independent guy that has 20+ acres he can give over to planting and growing trees for 3-5+ years and sell them off to the local guys who want to sell them in town won't get a dime. But they'll have to pay the tax.
The LLC that are a subsidiary to some AgriCorp or Paper company will get the money.
Jim P. at November 9, 2011 7:30 PM
The agenda behind it is to give police some face-saving probable cause if their SWAT force entries proves blank again and again. They will be able to say that they had a tip on an illegal tree placed in the vicinity and had to come to investigate the tax fraud.
Me at November 9, 2011 7:44 PM
Soon to be followed by the Nose Booger-Digging and -Rolling Promotion Board.
(Anyone ever heard of something this dumb before?)
mpetrie98 at November 9, 2011 8:59 PM
Yeap. About 70% of the federal government regulations.
Jim P. at November 9, 2011 9:10 PM
They have tree rental places where they bring you a potted tree, take it away, and replant it. You could look into those, Patrick, if you wanted a tree.
NicoleK at November 10, 2011 7:51 AM
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street;
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat;
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat;
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
LauraGr at November 10, 2011 8:20 AM
Maybe I'm just dense, but how is increasing the price of something by tacking a tax onto it supposed to promote the purchasing of said object? It would seem that they'd lower the price if they wanted people to buy them.
And anyway, I'm allergic to pine, so there.
Choika at November 15, 2011 8:28 AM
Leave a comment