- Sen. Harry Reid goes to hospital as a precaution
- Fla.’s Trey Radel exits rehab, ‘excited’ to resume congressional role
- U.S. nuclear general boozed it up, chased ‘hot women’ in Russia: report
- 45 Calif. students at one school test positive for tuberculosis exposure
- Rob Ford on women: Give them cash ‘and they are happy’
- Ku Klux Klan group holds recruitment meeting in Maryland
- Airport assassination: Mayor, 3 others killed at Manila airport
- Tea party-type lawmakers take mysterious, off-books trip to Mideast
- North Korea warns South: We’ll attack ‘without warning’
- Congress sends sweeping defense bill to Obama
FEULNER: Out on a limb on taxes
Christmas tree ‘assessment’ is rooted in the farm bill
Question of the Day
Christmas may be six months off, but it seems the Grinch is already at work.
If the name of the tax sounds vaguely familiar, that may be because the idea first surfaced about a year-and-a-half ago. In November 2011, the Obama administration issued a rule that approved a program to help promote Christmas trees.
If you’re thinking that Christmas trees don’t exactly need promotion, you’re not alone. Such a time-honored and perennial tradition hardly needs a PR boost. The fact that something is unnecessary isn’t about to stop those in Washington, though.
The plan was for government to set up a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The aim: “to enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas-tree industry in the United States.” To fund that, tree-sellers would have to slap a 15-cent “assessment” on fresh-cut Christmas trees, which could eventually rise to 20 cents per tree.
The National Christmas Tree Association had already tried three times to get its members to agree to this fee voluntarily. Each time, they balked. So the group wound up going to Washington to try and get the force of government behind it. The result was the Christmas-tree tax.
The Heritage Foundation sounded the alarm. Public backlash ensued, causing the administration to halt the tax — at least, temporarily. The House version of the farm bill, though, contains a provision that would lift the block on the tax.
Wait, some proponents of the program say, this wouldn’t be a “tax.” Oh, OK. Tree producers and importers would be forced to pay an involuntary “assessment,” and the full force of government would be used to punish those who fail to pay it. Feel better now?
Please. Government collection of money through coercion is a tax, no matter what you call it. Besides, this “assessment” acts as a tax on consumers, because the costs will be passed onto them.
Such a small amount is hardly a bank-breaker, some will reply, but this is a skewed perspective. “A 15-cent tax may not seem like much,” writes budget expert Daren Bakst. “However, taxes are a death by a thousand cuts. One of those cuts shouldn’t come from the Christmas tree.”
Among those cuts: the many other “assessments” that Congress requires from the producers of certain commodities — fees then passed on to consumers. They include:
Beef: $1 per head of cattle, totaling $80 million annually.
Blueberries: $12 per ton.
Cotton: $1 per bale of cotton handled.
Dairy products: 15-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on all milk produced in the lower 48 states.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
By Michael P. Orsi
Edward Snowden should declare his patriotism in court
Get Breaking Alerts
- Huge backlash mounts over suspension of 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson
- Citing 'unfair system,' Obama commutes sentences for 8 crack offenders
- Deportations under Obama plunged to just 1 percent last year
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Sebelius adds yet another exemption for Obamacare
- Special ops vets slam military benefit cuts
- EDITORIAL: Red faces at the White House
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- PRUDEN: 'Tis the season for apologies