Obama’s New ‘Christmas Tree Tax’

And the initiative came from the tree growers - not the White House. The USDA approved the creation of the "Christmas Tree, Promotion, Research, and Information Order, that is to be created from the revenue generated by this fee, not the fee itself, which was requested by the growers to their governing body (the USDA), as is required by law, and is paid by the growers themselves, not the buyers. Now explain to me again how Obama has anything to do with this decision and how it's a tax that you'll have to pay, and how you know it will or won't hurt the industry since they're the ones who asked for it!

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles ... procedures
Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Referendum Procedures
A Rule by the Agricultural Marketing Service on 11/08/2011
This final rule establishes procedures for conducting a referendum to determine whether the continuation of the Christmas Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is favored by domestic producers and importers of Christmas trees. This program will be implemented under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The 1996 Act allows for a referendum to be conducted up to three years after the effective date of the Order. The program will be continued if approved by a simple majority of the current eligible domestic producers and importers voting in the referendum. (Not the government, the growers) These procedures will also be used for any subsequent referendum under the Order. The Order is being published separately in this issue of the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12988 Back to Top

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act provides that the Act shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.Show citation box

Under Section 519 of the 1996 Act, a person subject to an order may file a petition with the Department (USDA) stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law. In the petition, the person may request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the Department will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of entry of the Department's final ruling.Show citation box

This final rule establishes procedures for conducting a referendum to determine whether the continuation of the Christmas Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is favored by domestic producers and importers of Christmas trees. Domestic producers and importers can vote three years after the establishment of the program to determine if they favor the continuation of the program. This referendum will need to be approved by a simple majority of the eligible domestic producers and importers voting in the referendum. The proponents proposed that a referendum be held among domestic producers and importers three years after the first assessments begin to determine whether they favor continuation of the program. USDA will conduct the referendum. These procedures will also be used for any subsequent referendum under the Order.

The 1996 Act authorizes USDA to establish agricultural commodity research and promotion orders which may include a combination of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information activities funded by mandatory assessments. These programs are designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities. As defined under section 513(1)(D) of the 1996 Act, agricultural commodities include the products of forestry, which includes Christmas trees.

The 1996 Act provides for alternatives within the terms of a variety of provisions. Paragraph (e) of section 518 of the 1996 Act provides three options for determining industry approval of a new research and promotion program: (1) By a majority of those persons voting; (2) by persons voting for approval who represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity; or (3) by a majority of those persons voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity. In addition, section 518 of the 1996 Act provides for referenda to ascertain approval of an order to be conducted either prior to its going into effect or within three years after assessments first begin under an order.Show citation box

USDA received a proposal for a national research and promotion program for Christmas trees from the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force (Task Force). The program will be financed by an assessment on Christmas trees domestic producers and importers and would be administered by a board of industry members selected by the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary). The initial assessment rate will be $0.15 per Christmas tree domestically produced or imported into the United States and could be increased up to $0.20 per Christmas tree. The purpose of the program will be to strengthen the position of fresh cut Christmas trees in the marketplace and maintain and expand markets for Christmas trees within the United States.Show citation box

The Task Force proposed that a referendum be held among domestic producers and importers three years after the first assessments begin to determine whether they favor continuation of the program. The Task Force recommended that the program be continued if it is favored by a majority of the current domestic producers and importers voting in the referendum. Current domestic producers or importers who domestically produce or import more than 500 Christmas trees annually will be eligible to vote in the referendum.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. And this is why it's a law that the growers had to request this order to be approved by the USDA - to protect the small businesses from being run out by the big growers who could request an order like this knowing they can't possibly pay without going out of business. It gives the small businesses a voice by allowing them to put in comments and vote, plain and simple.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (domestic manufacturers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.0 million.

neptunechimney wrote:

Science Chic wrote: And the initiative came from the tree growers - not the White House. .

How does that square with this?

Science Chic wrote: It's not a tax, it didn't come from the government. .

Do you now favor government kowtowing to special interest groups?

I'm not sure I see the problem - both statements say the same thing - this fee was not initiated by the government, but by the owners in the industry, and it's not being passed on to the consumers so it's not a tax. How is this kowtowing to a special interest group? They asked for a fee to be established that they themselves will pay, to create a self-governed group to study how to make their business more profitable? If anything, this smacks of over-regulation (having to submit a request like this to be approved by the government instead of just being able to form a coalition to do it), not kowtowing to special interests. If it was doing that, then it would be affecting the consumer somehow, either we'd have to pay a tax, or we'd have rules placed on access to product and neither is the case.

No, I do not support the government being supplicant to special interest groups, but I do favor regulation that makes sense because it protects the public's health, the environment, and small businesses from being railroaded by bigger businesses (and probably some other reasons that I can't think of right now). tongue:

Joe wrote: I usually just go out in my front yard and cut down a little tree. Do I need to send a check for 15 cents to the Dept. of Agriculture first? I don't want any trouble.

No, growers and importers who move less than 500 trees/year are exempt. Don't you guys read the fine print? Love the question though! :thumbsup:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: If there is a need for advertising why does the government need to get involved at all???????? What is the need for the tree growers to have the government collect the money???? Just like any business they could charge fifteen cents more and set it aside for advertising purposes. Duh. Too much to ask??? If it is only for the Big time growers why bother? Let them to be self sufficient or responsible for their needs?? Never. Come government hold my hand, I'll even give you another idea of how to do it. What exactly does it accomplish to have the government involved??? Oh wait. It creates more bureaucracy, more jobs, that the fifteen cents will never cover, but tax payers will have an opportunity to do so, and one more reason why the government needs more money. Simply STUPID and SICK. ANd, like all government activity, this will not go away by itself. What has this nation become when so many people keep thinking it is ok for government to act on all things private business?

Rockdoc, I don't think the government collects the money, I believe the growers do (I could be wrong about that - I didn't see it spelled out in the formal explanation that I linked to earlier). I'm guessing that the government has to approve this kind of implementation because selling live products falls under the review of gov't agencies, and it would be an excellent mechanism for large producers/importers to squeeze out smaller competition using this group creation (although how much competition little companies really are against bigger ones I can't see as a true driving force, but I also didn't research the background on the law that required the growers to place this request with the USDA for approval.

However, it did state quite clearly that the growers are the ones who will be voting on renewing this fee, not the government. The cost of the government's duties were spelled out in the link above, and it was about $3700 for the 3 year time period that this is in effect, and comes out of the fees on the trees that the growers pay. It didn't sound like the government did much at all in this "order".