O'bama is the GRINCH that stole Christmas!

[UserRemoved1]

Owen I am disappointed that every day someone has their hand out. As someone who has worked all their life to pay their own way and seeing how hard it's been I resent this bs the more I see it. It's less food on my kids table and older clothes on their back. It all adds up. If this is happening for all the other stuff too which I didn't know then this needs to be changed. It's wrong. One of the reasons Govt is the way it is now.

Taxing friggin Christmas trees isn't the answer. You got the reason they lobbied for it right there. They want to compete against artificial trees because it hurts their bottom line.

Originally Posted by zimmy

Why the uproar now? Scott, you eat beef; chicken; pork; corn products; dairy; or wear cotton, the fabric of our lives? Why are you so irrate about this? You live another 50 years, this tax, if passed on, will cost you 1/10,000th of 1 percent of what you pay toward the promotion board taxes for those other commodities. Nevermind, it won't cost you anything since you have a toilet brush on a stand Wouldn't you be better served to complain about those?

[zimmy]

The one difference Scott is that this isn't about handouts, this is about an ag. commodity asking for what amounts to a (~$50 per tree x $0.15 =) 3/10 of 1 percent tax on themselves to pay for their own advertising campaign. Life is too short to get upset about that stuff. Today I was at the barber and he had judge Judy on. There was a 43 yo guy on w/ his 25 yo girlfriend. He looked very healthy, but said he didn't have a job. When questioned about it, he said he was on ss disability. JJ said something like "Not healthy enough to work, but healthy enough to conceive a kid with your girlfriend. I guess we will be paying for you for the next 50 years." His response was "Yeah, probably." That shtuff should piss anyone off. The 3/10ths of a percent tax on Christmas trees requested by the industry is hardly justifies getting worked up about, let alone the title "obama-grinch-stole-christmas."

[UserRemoved1]

Cept the problem is the hand is out to take from me. Whether it's .15 here, or $4.00 here, or $50, or $1,000 the bottom line is it all adds up EVERY DAY and the harder I try to make ends meet the more you see #^&#^&#^&#^& like this. Maybe I should just say screw it, cut my hands off and go collect for the rest of my life. Occupy Uxbridge

Maybe John can change the title to O'bama is the Grinch that TRIED to steal Xmas

[scottw]

it's a nice distraction from Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, the economy, Europe, OCCUPY, the Cain media assasination....etc.....

I guess not important issues.... but throw out a 15 cent tax on Christmas trees for discussion and you get all sorts of facts, figures and argument ....

[Raven]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Maybe John can change the title to O'bama is the Grinch that TRIED to steal Xmas

or TAX CHRISTMAS

because of how sensative people have become after 9-11
there will be no more uttering "more christ" as it's no longer about him... it's about SANTA Claus...

Santa should have MAGIC dust...that
GOES DOWN YOUR CHIMNEY
and sets up a christmas tree...

anyone caught saying the word christmas shall be fined
$1.00 US Dollar which is practically EXTINCT

[GregW]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

How many of you guys here
#1 have a CPA,
#2 Work for Yourself (and have to balance your income versus what you sell your product for), and
#3 pay a tax like this.


Step up and tell us what you do. If you tell me it's not figured into the cost of your product then you should close your business right now. Your doomed to failure.

I hate taxes , but have no desire to argue politics on a fishing board. However, you are apparently using the wrong CPA. The average software will pick up a small tax like this that a book keeper(or the small business owner) can operate. And the average amount of money an accountant can save you by doing your taxes correctly and properly depreciating the value of your equipment (while decreasing the profits you made) would far outweight the cost.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Cept the problem is the hand is out to take from me. Whether it's .15 here, or $4.00 here, or $50, or $1,000 the bottom line is it all adds up EVERY DAY and the harder I try to make ends meet the more you see #^&#^&#^&#^& like this. Maybe I should just say screw it, cut my hands off and go collect for the rest of my life. Occupy Uxbridge

Maybe John can change the title to O'bama is the Grinch that TRIED to steal Xmas

You don't have to buy a Christmas tree from a farm that sells more than 500 trees. You don't have to buy a Christmas tree. You DON"T buy a Christmas tree. #$#*$&*# like this? I pay the same $#^($#&*( when I buy your plugs It is wrapped up in your advertising costs. You want to compete against another co.'s sick plastic darter that lasts for ever, you may have to advertise more. That cost will get passed on to me. If all wooden plug makers got together and wanted 5 cents per plug sold to go to the plug maker association, I could buy plastic plugs. Actually, maybe they would sell MORE plugs, have higher profits, and charge less! Maybe your tree will be cheaper because the profit margin of the farmers will be higher. They won't need to charge as much !!!!

[scottw]

honestly...is this some kind of joke???

if this what is going on at the Ag. Department we should consider shutting down the Ag. Department




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.


this has to be a joke

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

honestly...is this some kind of joke???

if this what is going on at the Ag. Department we should consider shutting down the Ag. Department




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.


this has to be a joke

This is all about the war between those who sell natural Christmas trees and those who sell artificial trees. The artificial trees have been winning, so the naturals petitioned the Ag Dept for help, and, presto, another case of the Federal Govt. taking sides, picking winners and losers, sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is all about the war between those who sell natural Christmas trees and those who sell artificial trees.

so in Obama Admin. lingo this would be an ....

"OVER TREES CONTINGENCY PLAN"

[zimmy]

The joke is that the federal government is involved in all aspects of agriculture and this is what gets the attention. It actually demonstrates a bit about lack of awareness of agriculture in this country. Take a few minutes and look into it. I read the Farming News weekly (Lancaster Farming: The Mid-Atlantic's Source for Farming News and Equipment) and this is about the least compelling story that could possibly come out, except for the titillating title.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is all about the war between those who sell natural Christmas trees and those who sell artificial trees. The artificial trees have been winning, so the naturals petitioned the Ag Dept for help, and, presto, another case of the Federal Govt. taking sides, picking winners and losers, sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.

Really? I would think most here would want the promotion of American grown Christmas trees over artificial trees which are pretty much entirely made in China out of oil. That actually isn't what is happening, because all ag. commodities can request this, but still. The rest already had promotion boards for years Most of the boards are major supporters to conservative candidates, too.

[basswipe]

ANY tax increase is total BS.Love watching the Obama ball lickers defend this guy.

Taxing christmas trees is targeting a very specific segment of our society...christians.In case all of you Obama worshippers have forgotten christmas is a religious holiday,specifically a christian holiday.These trees are grown and sold for one reason and one reason only...the christian holiday known as christmas.Taxing them is unconstitutional and if you think I'm BSing then go to your local christian church and then follow the paper trail and find out if the palm fronds you get on palm Sunday are taxed......from their point of origin to your church they are not taxed.Christmas trees and palm fronds are one in the same.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Really? I would think most here would want the promotion of American grown Christmas trees over artificial trees which are pretty much entirely made in China out of oil. That actually isn't what is happening, because all ag. commodities can request this, but still. The rest already had promotion boards for years Most of the boards are major supporters to conservative candidates, too.

Yes, really. If a business needs government to promote it, its staying power is questionable--not to mention that there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Government to help one legal business over or against another. There are retail outlets, employees, transportation agencies in this country that are involved with the artificial trees as well as the natural. If American tree growers want to promote their product over the artificial competitor's, let them do it on their own. Nothing is stopping them from informing us where the artificial trees are made. They can hire ad agencies to promote their product as traditional, home-grown, better for America. Going to the government to do so solidifies that corrupt nexus between government and business that "most" object to. Isn't it the traditional American way to keep government out of business. Shouldn't we the people decide what type of Christmas tree we'll buy? Isn't it the traditional American way that we decide what pleases us, what we buy, not the government? I suspect that "most" buy the artificial trees because they are more convenient, less messy, and less costly because they can be used over and over. Those that prefer natural don't need Aunt Sam to promote them. Auntie Sam really has no business here--not legally, morally, spiritually, traditionally. And the artificial trees were made here years ago. The rising costs of manufacturing here is our problem, one that we don't, or can't, seem to be able to solve.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Added: Bold edited by me...

Originally Posted by basswipe

:Taxing christmas trees is targeting a very specific segment of our society...Farmers who grow Christmas trees, who want more sales and cried to a lobbiest, because more people are buying fake trees

Originally Posted by basswipe

:Christmas trees and palm fronds are one in the same.

Except that the Palm fronds are handed out as part of a religious service... are pine trees in the bible as a Christmas symbol? Or given out like communion? My very lapsed catholicism is a bit rusty...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Auntie Sam really has no business here--not legally

Read the freakin law. It has been in effect for 15 years The exact same thing has happened for practically every agriculture product for 15 YEARS. Not only is it legal, it has more than a decade of precedent

[zimmy]

Damx! that liberal REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Cattlemen's Beef Promotion And Research Board, or CBB, was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. CBB currently consists of 106 members who are nominated by certified nominating organizations and appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to serve a three-year term.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Read the freakin law. It has been in effect for 15 years The exact same thing has happened for practically every agriculture product for 15 YEARS. Not only is it legal, it has more than a decade of precedent

My reference to legality was "there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Government to help one legal business over or against another." I wasn't referring to any of the many "laws" that Congress has passed that subvert the Constitution and have been validated by social activist judges that prefer their vision to that of the Founders.

As for the Department of Agriculture, it has grown to behemoth proportions since the basic statistical function it originally served. And its original mission to assist the growth of U.S. agrilculture has expanded in ways that distort the production, marketing, and cost of agricultural commodities, not always in positive, but in negative ways. Subsidies, for instance, are a transfer of billions of dollars from general taxpayers to farmers, and 75% of that transfer is to the large, corporate farms--the corporate welfare that "most" despise. These subsidies are a distortion of free markets and a loss of the innovations those markets could provide. They distort world food prices and discourage agriculture in developing countries, exacerbating their poverty levels.

As for the Beef promotion and research act of 1985, its purpose was to aid in the promotion of "beef and beef products" which are "basic foods that are a valuable part of human diet," and to aid in beef's production because of its "significant role in the nation's economy." There was a provision "By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying."

The Christmas Tree Promotion Board's mission was to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry in the U.S. Comparing this to the beef act which could not be used to promote paricular breeds, the tree board mission promotes natural trees over artificial. Nor are Christmas trees a basic food in the human diet, nor a basic, necessary commodity for human life or consumption. Nor do they play a significant role in the nation's economy.

[zimmy]

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant. All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture. You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag. Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by basswipe

ANY tax increase is total BS.Love watching the Obama ball lickers defend this guy.
Taxing them is unconstitutional

Apparently, you don't know the constitution. Selling Christmas trees for profit has nothing to do with tax exemption, unless the farm is a 501c3 organization. However, it is nice to know that there is a lot of support from you tea party types for ending all of these ag subsidies/taxes. That is a dramatic change from the conservative platform for over half a century.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I didn't defend the beef board. You brought up the Beef Promotion and Research Act as the basis for the Christmas tree tax. I just pointed out the comparison is flimsy at best. Christmas trees are not a basic necessity as is food and clothing. And in the competition between artificial and natural trees, the Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for supporting one over the other. Sure, if you find the right judge anything can be found "Constitutional." But that is phony, corrupt "constitutionality," and we have evolved a current mode of centralized government based on such phoniness. And Constitutional basis is legal basis. And the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to create any laws it wants. It is authorized to create only laws that fall within its enumerated powers, which are limited. The vast lawmaking authority is left to the states and localities.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant.

Actually you can update that to last year which grossed about $2 billion in sales of Christmas trees--but that figure includes artificial trees as well as natural. And when you break down the numbers about $1.25 billion of that is artificial tree sales leaving about $750 milliion for natural trees. That is gross, not net. Small potatoes in comparison to GDP. As far as the 100,000 jobs, at least half, probably more, are temporary immigrant farm laborers. And breaking down the gross sales to pay 100,000 workers averages out to about $7500/year per worker. Of course, much of the gross is other expenses and profits, so the $7500 average is more than the actual average yearly pay. The gross sales of artifical trees has more significance and the average annual pay for workers is probably much more than that of the natural tree average. Plus, though most of the artificial trees are made in China, there are American made trees. Three companies that make artificial trees in America are Mountain King, Hudson Valley Tree Co., and Holiday Tree and Trim Co. There may be others. This sector can expand if people who prefer artificial trees grows. Again, it's not the Federal Government's business to aid one against the other, nor to influence what kind of trees we should buy.

All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture.

You brought up the Ag Dept, not me. I never mentioned Obama.

You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag.

Start the debate in another thread if you're hot and ready.

Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

I did not mention conservatives, or Republicans, or the Tea Party, or Obama. You have mentioned these a few times. It seems to interest you far more than I care about it. I don't support any of the above when they act unconstitutionally.

[UserRemoved1]

And I'm betting $5 right now that just like 95% of the people in the fishing lure business that it's the same in the xmas tree business....under the table...so exactly what does that do for you now with 100,000 jobs. You could say the same thing about fishing lures. There's a guy literally on every street corner nowadays. Most already have a job...it's all cash money for them just like xmas tree sellers.

So exactly what does that do for the jobs numbers and the economy.....ZILCH

I'm betting this has hurt the xmas tree business as much as it's hurt the lure business...I can fully see it being worked the same way....whose going to prove you dropped 300 trees off that truck or 25 when it's all green going in your pocket and the govt knows nothing.... These guys are gone overnight.

Detbuch and zimmy in 2012

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant. All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture. You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag. Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that the Palm fronds are handed out as part of a religious service... are pine trees in the bible as a Christmas symbol? Or given out like communion? My very lapsed catholicism is a bit rusty...

I think that despite modern commercialization, most would agree that Christmas is a Christian concept or at least one that has developed through the practices of the Christian faith however you want to trace the origins....without Christ or Christmas, we likely would not be decorating trees for December 25th

if you put up a Christmas tree in your home and wake up up on the 25th and rip open presents absent the religeous meaning of Christmas....what exactly are you celebrating and why? because Walmart and Kay Jewellers told you to?




further...

Martin Luther admired the custom of Eastern Orthodox Christians, in which they displayed a fruit tree in the early part of December to commemorate the “Feast of Adam and Eve.” He wanted to do something similar in the Protestant Church of Germany. So he brought a fir tree into the chapel and decorated it with candles, placing a nativity beneath it. The candles were designed to represent the star of Bethlehem and the choir of angles that sang “Glory to God in the highest...” Eventually the Eastern Orthodox custom, and the Protestant Lutheran custom, merged together resulting in the decoration of the tree with round ornaments to represent the Orthodox fruit tree, stars and angels to represent the Lutheran concept.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it.

overstatement

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I never mentioned Obama.

He is the subject of the title of the thread

The "Obama...stole Christmas" article is misleading and unfortunately that kind of bs that feeds hatred of the president. It implies he chose to tax Christmas. Some here have even stated that it is an attack on Christianity and implied the attack was by Obama.

The industry requested it, which is legal under current law established long ago.

All other discussion is an aside.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He is the subject of the title of the thread

The "Obama...stole Christmas" article is misleading and unfortunately that kind of bs that feeds hatred of the president. It implies he chose to tax Christmas. Some here have even stated that it is an attack on Christianity and implied the attack was by Obama.

The industry requested it, which is legal under current law established long ago.

All other discussion is an aside.

Obama is part of the title of the thread. The thread starts wilth an article about the Christmas tree tax and the Agriculture Dept. involvement. I pointed out later that the "tax" was about the war between artificial and natural trees, WHICH IT IS, so that should help your exoneration of Obama and you should appreciate since that seems to be what's important to you in this thread. But discussing what the tax is about, Ag Dept. involvement, Constitutional principles, are not off topic or asides, they are germane to the topic of the so-called tax. That the industry requested help from the Ag. Dept. is "legal" under current law doesn't mean the law is Constitutional in the strict sense. Nor does it mean the request fits, entirely, the process. The process of agricultural commodity societies requesting help to promote their product should not do so when it is at the detriment of another, especially a competing, product. This was implied in the caveat in the beef promotion act--"By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying." Nor does the Constitution provide Congress the ability to leglislate in favor of one legal business over another. The Ag. Dept. involvement with other commodity promotions was not about competition between commodities, but aid strictly to a specific one NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER, however Constitutional or not. This Christmas tree tax is specifically about the competition between natural and artificial trees and the government is not Constitutionally authorized to favor or help one over the other.

[scottw]

not only that..this is a government agency promoting "CHRISTMAS" trees....whatever happened to separation of church and state?

where's the ACLU when you need them...oh, they have their hands full defending the OCCUPY folks

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying."

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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 ..........

you continue to reinforce the stupidity of this...

I wonder what the Chinese Artificial Christmas Tree Board will have to say about all of this?

"Just like the Chinese Artificial Christmas tree money can't be used for green vs. white...."

[detbuch]

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.