Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Right, they can't be used for Herefords vs Angus. Just like the Christmas tree money can't be used for Spruce vs. Balsam. Just because the competition is Chinese made artificial trees does not prohibit Christmas tree promotion board from participating in the program as an ag commodity. Artificial trees are not an ag commodity. Just because you don't like it has nothing to do with the legality.
|
For the third time, my reference to legality was "there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to help one legal business over or against another." If there is not Constitutional power to do so, doing so is Constitutionally illegal (unconstitutional). The beef act caveat did not specify that the commodity had to be an ag commodity. You might assume that, but with the competition with artificial trees, you have a rather unique situation. None of the other agricultural commodities have an artificial counterpart that is used for and serves the same purpose. None of the other commodity acts, as far as I know, were about competition with non-agricultural commodities, but simply to promote their generic commodity. The Christmas tree act is unique in that direct competition with another commodity is the reason for its promotion, which is fine if the natural tree association does it on its own, but not fine if the government is involved. By the way, they had hired an ad agency on their own in 2004 to rejuvinate larger sales of natural trees, but that didn't work so well, so now they think government help might do the job. What can government sponsorship do to convince people to by natural over artificial? It's not like they can improve or upgrade their product. Price doesn't seem to be a factor since on average, the price of artificial trees sold is almost twice that of natural. Of course, in the long run, you save by not having to buy new trees every year. And the designs and styles of artificial trees have been changed to newer, better, and more attractive models every year. The variety of artificials is far greater, etc., etc. Economic factors both for customers and the "economy" are better with artificials, etc., etc. etc. The government may have backed off for good reasons.
You are right, in itself, this is minor. My objection is the larger picture of government intervention where it is neither warranted, nor Constitutionally appropriate.