I received a response this morning from Betty Malone, one of the tree farmers behind the petition for the new federal Christmas tree board. I promised you guys I’d post anything substantive I received from the NCTA and I promised Betty that I would post her email without edits or editorial comment.
It goes without saying that most folks here will agree to disagree with the NCTA and Betty, but she gives a great presentation for her point of view and I expect disagreements will be expressed in the usual thoughtful style.
Everything that follows is from Betty Malone:
Dear Clair,
Rick Dungey from the National Christmas Tree Association asked me to respond to your questions. We are a small Christmas tree farm in the foothills of the Oregon Coast Range. We are primarily wholesalers, but have been retailers and now also have a small choose and cut operation. Our soils are suited to growing Christmas trees and not much else. My husband and I have been in Christmas tress since 1972.
A check-off is a program where commodity groups can help themselves to better their industry. A couple of the longest running ones are cotton and beef. They formed because there were incredible challenges in their industries that no one state or company could answer. When I was in high school, Sunday nights were spent ironing clothes for the next week at school. The cotton check-off paid for the research that made permanent press cotton fabric possible. Do you remember how cotton clothes used to fade? The Cotton Check-off paid for the research that paid for that, too. The cotton check-off was formed because their industry was being overwhelmed by polyester fabric that didn’t fade and didn’t wrinkle.
But by working together, the industries such as cotton, could pool their resources and speak with one voice. The assessment that is made is self-imposed funding by the industry itself to help itself. The monies are collected, the program designed and run by an industry board. Taxes are monies collected by the government for use by the government. Monies collected by check-offs go directly to the check-off to be used for research and promotion for that industry alone.
We petitioned the USDA as is our right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. We asked them to allow us to create a program that they would then provide the oversight, that the industry pays for. It is revenue neutral to the government. The government doesn’t get any of the money, but the industry has to pay for the oversight.
We did not do this lightly. It is a serious thing we were asking. The oversight is a good thing. A check-off is audited annually. The check-off boards must set goals to be met by the program. Every 5 or so years an econometric study must be done that tells whether or not those goals are met. If those goals are not met, the program folds. The USDA makes sure that money is used for what it is supposed to be used for.
A group of us growers and importers started 3.5 years ago in April of 2008 to study other commodities that have tried these programs. We focused on commodities that were similar in size: blueberries, mangoes, watermelons, sorghum and several others. We conducted facilitated sessions in the four top growing areas of the country. By now there have been at least 100 meetings across the country at state and national Christmas tree meetings discussing the check-off.
You asked how we can guarantee that the assessment would not be passed on to the consumer. We can’t guarantee that. Each grower will make that decision. We are primarily wholesalers. In 2008 I contacted all our buyers, mostly retailers, and asked them how would they feel about this kind of promotion program and the assessment. They were all supportive and excited to get the kind of help in the market place that the check-off could supply. Some offered to pay the whole thing, some offered to split the cost, should it come into being.
Farmers know dirt. We know how to grow things. But in this changing world is it not enough to grow a great product. We have to let people know about our product. That takes time, coordination and money.
Nothing prevents farmers from pooling their resources without the USDA. In the last 20 years there have two very strong voluntary programs initiated by the industry that raised nearly a million dollars each. We have found, as every industry we studied found, that voluntary programs have a life of about 3 years. The volunteers running the program and paying into the program burn out. Everyone in the industry benefits, but only a few carry the burden. These two programs had great impact on our industry’s ability to promote our product. We know promotion and research work. We have to do it as an industry to survive. A check-off is fair, equitable and can supply sustainable monies.
Clair, thanks for your questions. Please let me know if you have others.
Betty Malone
Sunrise Tree Farm
ADDED: Silver gives a point-by-point response to Ms. Malone on his blog at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Let me paraphrase:
“Not enough tree producers were participating voluntarily, so we got the government involved to force them to.”
There, that was easier to say and saved a lot of time.
She may know dirt, but I know BS when I see it.
I agree with JR.
But — assuming everything Malone said is true in exactly the way she meant it — it sounds like a great opportunity for some marketing company to come on board and help, to keep government out of it while promoting this [or other] industries. It would be better to pay the company to promote than be tied to government’s dubious apron strings by enforcement.
And it’s time for voluntary middlemen to take up the slack between the smaller companies and government, and prove the worth of voluntary action. (“Voluntary” in the sense of offering one’s services.) Even co-ops can do the job, if big enough. I was just reading this a.m. about a food co-op in western Montana http://www.wmgcoop.com/?p=local. Why not a Christmas tree co-op of smaller companies working together to promote themselves (which _doesn’t_ have to be local, but can be regional, or all over the country)? The internet is there for the taking; they don’t need permission, and they don’t need huge sums. Most of all, they don’t need government to do the job for them. They just need a little know-how and go-to-it-iveness.
I also agree with JR that forcing others to do what they aren’t doing voluntarily is the crux of the matter.
And Pat — damn brilliant. You bring to mind one huge similar voluntary effort that has gone on for decades: Ocean Spray cranberries. Everybody thinks it’s a company brand, but it’s not. It’s a co-op of independent growers. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ocean_Spray_%28cooperative%29
And of course it not only markets, but processes and does other things for a host of tiny growers. Absolutely: voluntary effort doesn’t equate to volunteer effort. The Christmas tree growers who thought the effort worthwhile could simply pool their money and hire experts to do the marketing.
It’s not the cost that bugs me, it’s the “mandatory” part.
As for her story about cotton research, I’m reminded of a story about the peanut industry being in huge trouble at one point. There weren’t enough buyers for their crops. Instead of imposing a tax-by-any-other-name, one guy did the research and invented new ways to use those crops. Thus, Americans now eat peanut butter by the megaton, and fry our foods in peanut oil.
Curious inventors will continue to invent, once government and “Industry” get out of their way. And yes, I speak as one of those inventors.
What Ellendra said-as I recall, the Diesel engine was originally designed to run on waste peanut-and other-agricultural oils. If left alone, the bright and curious types find ways out of problems that are a far greater benefit to the whole than any mandatory “help” would be.
I doubt I will ever buy a real tree again. I’ll either harvest them from a non-tree farm private property owner or use second-hand artificials. Maybe I’ll just make them out of tumbleweeds from now on (when I get rid of the white artificial tree). I hate to hurt the small tree farms, but I’m not the one who asked government to get involved. If they need someone to blame, they know where to find them.
That was the nicest demand to steal I have ever read, so soft and appealing,… like a cuddly porcupine.
After I read it I pictured the woman Adam Kokesh interviewed, a Nice, Warmongering Woman:
http://thedailybell.com/3216/Adam-Kokesh-Takes-on-a-Nice-Warmongering-Woman-and-Wins
Pleasantries all around.
Sounds so nice and innocent until you realize that it is involuntary and farmers that just want to grow trees and not have to collect and remit a .15 TAX on every tree they sell is basically told to like it or lump it. I am sticking with my artificial tree until the TAX is either voluntary or removed all together. Atlas is doing some shrugging!
I also agree with JR. If there were really any value in this the industry would do it voluntarily. And if a few choose not to participate (as is their right) and benefit as a “free rider”, so what? If the value is there to you it’s worth paying for, whether or not someone else also benefits. The fact that the can’t get enough interest without governmental force tells you all you need to know.
Anyway, what possible value is there in a christmas tree “commodity group”? How could it possibly “better the industry”? What could it do? Serve as a marketing collective? What’s the point? There’s no “branding” of this product, and is there really anyone in this country who doesn’t know about christmas trees? Or is unaware of all the local lots which spring up every December selling them? What possible benefit would there be to “the industry” if we started seeing christmas tree ads on TV? It certainly wouldn’t change any buying habits. Is there any sort of “research” that’s worth doing? Alternate uses for the trees? Easter trees or Fourth of July trees, maybe? Pork marketers can at least come up with new recipes, but that’s not possible with trees.
The whole idea is stupid. If Betty and her ilk want to indulge in it that’s fine with me, but they shouldn’t be able to force others to subsidize her pointless vanity project.
Laird, I’m suddenly picturing a whole line of food products made from christmas trees. Pine bark bread. Needle tea. Anyone familiar with wild edibles probably already knows about them, but I shudder to think of the ad campaigns that would be needed to make them acceptable by the general public.
Or maybe they’ll just stick to things like reclaimed christmas tree chopsticks or wood furniture? You can make a decent hat rack easily enough, just turn the tree upside-down and trim all but a few branches. . . .
Ok, getting me brainstorming can be a dangerous thing. I’ll shut up now while I still can.
I’ve had a living tree, in a pot, for pretty close to 20 years now. I like a very small tree, so this won’t work for those who want something floor to ceiling, but it is a good alternative for many, especially older folks. It spends most of the year in a sunny spot outside, and is brought in only for Christmas. When the tree gets too big for an indoor pot, I plant it outside and buy a new one. Six years ago I bought a Norfolk Island Pine – a slow grower. It’s been ideal and will last for a very long time.
I wasn’t supporting the cut tree business anyway, but will now do what I can to promote living trees for those who want a Christmas tree.
Even if every single point Ms. Betty made was 100% true, it could never justify coercion of any person. A tax is a theft is a tax by any other name.
“Alternate uses for the trees?”
I know several people who plant the tree outside and decorate it with bird goodies: fruit, nuts, seeds, berries, peanut butter, suet, etc. Others grind them up for mulch.
http://community.mises.org/silver/2011/11/11/my-response-to-betty-malone-regarding-the-christmas-tree-tax/
-S — You were posting this comment just as I was adding the link (found at TMM) to the bottom of the blog entry. No harm having it here twice, thank you.
One word……..Bullshit.
LOL. Translation: we want free advertising, subsidized by the taxpayer.
What could have made it more lucrative and completely private sector, is for the group/co-op/whatever to create a brand identity to promote, and only those growers who paid to support the group get to use the brand.
Resorting to the use of government force to get everyone on board is just mental and moral laziness.
Bear