Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Phil Mickelson, leaving California, taxes

Tiger Woods on Mickelson:
Congressman Ellison on Mickelson:

California voters approved Proposition 30 last November. In addition to raising the state sales tax, it imposed a menu of new tax brackets. Just the increase of the top bracket to 13.3 percent from 10.3 percent cost Mickelson roughly $1.8 million of his $60 million income for 2012.
Mickelson’s longtime rival, Tiger Woods, acknowledged last week that he left California for Florida in 1996 upon turning pro because of the difference in state tax. At the time, California’s top rate was 9.3 percent for individuals earning more than $32,000. Woods, who earned $56.4 million in 2012, kept roughly $7.5 million this year in funds he otherwise would have owed to the state of California. Mickelson, who will now pay the 13.3 percent rate, will owe the state about $8 million.

Q. When you're asked about Stricker's semi retirement, with the political situation the last couple months, blah, blah, blah, what did you mean by that? Do you find it an unsettling time in a way?
PHIL MICKELSON: Well, it's been an interesting offseason. And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes. I'm not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes.
Q. Meaning leaving from California?
PHIL MICKELSON: I'm not sure.
Q. Moving to Canada?
PHIL MICKELSON: I'm not sure what exactly, you know, I'm going to do yet. I'll probably talk about it more in depth next week. I'm not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some. There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn't work for me right now. So I'm going to have to make some changes.
Q. Is that a correlation between that and what happened to the Padres?
Q. With you?
Q. So why do you say next week? What is going to happen so drastic next week?
PHIL MICKELSON: No, but I'll probably be in the media center and I'll probably be a little more open to it because San Diego is where a lot more things, it's where I live, it's where the Padre thing was a possibility, and it's where my family is. And it just seems like a better fit than right here off of 18 on Palm Springs.
Q. Is it a stance that you are taking because on the one hand, you've made a lot of money, and no matter how much they take out, you are left with a lot of money?
PHIL MICKELSON: Yeah. I'll probably go into it more next year or next week. But if you add up, if you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent. So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do.
Q. How do you balance that against the TOUR's retirement plan which by all standards is the best retirement plan in sports?
PHIL MICKELSON: I don't understand. What do you mean?
Q. Well, I mean I understand the 60 percent part of the equation, but in the TOUR's plan, you guys put about as much money aside as you want. It's treated differently under tax laws than most anybody else's tax plans. Where most people can only put away $45,000 or $50,000, you guys can put as much away as you want. And so at the end you guys end up with a much larger pot of gold than most people can.
PHIL MICKELSON: But when it comes out, it's still taxed at the same 62 percent rate.
Q. Well, you're still making that kind of money. That's if you're still in that bracket.
PHIL MICKELSON: (No response.)

RUSH: Now, the Phil Mickelson story. There are two stories, actually. "Golfer Phil Mickelson May Call It Quits Due To Climbing Tax Rates." This was Forbes. And the author here, Tony Nitti, is making some fun of Phil Mickelson being a very rich golfer who works so hard for his money and now complaining about taxes.
"Word is, Phil Mickelson is mad as hell about rising tax rates, and he’s not going to take it anymore. What follows is a brief portion of an interview Mickelson gave earlier today --" this is yesterday "-- after carding a final-round 66 at the Palmer Course at PGA West in La Quinta -- which I assure you, is not associated with the La Quinta next door to your local Denny's." Typical snarky comment. I have played the Palmer course at La Quinta in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic. It's a great golf course, and this guy has to make fun of your little La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel. It's not that, don't get confused. Mickelson's not hanging around in some fleabag, winning a golf tournament, is what this guy says.
Anyway, he says that Mickelson "hinted that he is considering drastic career changes because of a combined tax rate nearing '62, 63 percent:'
Then the author of the story says, "To be honest, it’s hard to blame Mickelson -- who has compiled a net worth approaching $180 million by repeatedly striking a tiny white ball until it falls into a hole... Let's take a look what Mickelson's up against in 2013." And they go through what his federal rate is and his state rate, and then with Prop 30. The icing on the cake here is that Mickelson was going to buy into a portion of the San Diego Padres. Then they passed Prop 30 in California, and he pulled out of the Padres deal. He said, "I'm looking at a combined rate here of 63%. This doesn't make any sense."
So, anyway, the story got reported, was in Forbes, was all over the place. "In November, California passed Proposition 30, which increases the top income tax rate on resident millionaires to 13.3%, a drain on Mickelson’s take-home pay that may force him to sell his 9,500 square foot mansion and flee his home state in search of more friendly pastures."
Okay, so that was real, and Mickelson said all that, and it was reported. And there's a follow-up.
Fox News: "Mickelson Backtracks on Further Comment on Taxes After Speaking Out Over High Rate -- Golf star Phil Mickelson says he regrets publicly commenting that he may have to leave California over high taxes, saying he should not have spoken out on such a personal topic. In a statement to Fox News late Monday, Mickelson apologized to anyone he may have 'upset or insulted' with the comments that his high tax bracket was causing him to consider 'drastic changes.'"
He's apologizing. Phil Mickelson found it necessary to apologize for saying, "You know what, 63% tax rate combined, that may be too much. I may have to leave." Something happened that made him think the wise thing to do was apologize. And what's he apologizing for? Essentially for being selfish, for putting himself first. He's apologizing for thinking about himself. He didn't say the word selfish. It's not in his comments or anything, but it's what it means.
RUSH: So, ladies and gentlemen, what's the lesson here with Phil Mickelson? You will not speak against the revolution. You will not speak against the tax collectors. You will not speak against high taxes without getting into trouble. Somebody paying 62, 63% of their taxes and complaining about it, is somebody to be shamed, is somebody to be targeted. If you are finding yourself paying 62, 63% of your income in taxes, you're to sit there and take it, and understand that there's even more coming your way, because you are the reason we have the problems we have in the first place. It's because you haven't been paying your fair share up to now. So that 62, 63%, we're just getting even with you for all the breaks that you've had in the past.
So somebody saw the Forbes article, and somebody said, "Phil, you know what, you can't act selfish like that with all these endorsements." It had to be something like that. If your income -- well, again, I'm gonna stop there. Another one of these instances where I can only get into trouble by being right, and being right is very politically incorrect, so I'll dial it back...
RUSH: No, folks, I'm not making this up. I'm checking the e-mail during the break. Phil "Mickelson apologized to anyone he may have 'upset or insulted' with the comments that his high tax bracket was causing him to consider 'drastic changes' in his life." Phil Mickelson is apologizing for upsetting anybody who might have been offended at him saying he didn't want to pay a 63% tax rate. Now, something happened.
Mickelson makes the statement (paraphrased), "If taxes go to 62% or 63%, I'm gonna take drastic action. I may have to leave the state. I don't know." Something happens, and he issues an apology for offending people over that? Uhhh (Soviet accent), "You do not speak against the revolution!" You do not speak against the tax collector. So now the right thing to do is to apologize for thinking that a 63% tax rate on your earnings is not fair. That's unseemly, and you shouldn't do it, and you need to apologize for offending people.
Holy smokes!

WSJ 1/23/2013
California golfer Phil "Lefty" Mickelson says he will no longer publicly criticize the government for taking most of his paycheck. That's a shame. But even if it's now socially unacceptable for high achievers to suggest they should keep the fruits of their labor, that doesn't mean they will keep supplying that labor.

After a brilliant round Sunday at a tournament in La Quinta, California, Mr. Mickelson hinted that new tax burdens might drive him out of the state, out of professional golf, and perhaps even out of the country. "There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state, and it doesn't work for me right now," he said. "So I'm going to have to make some changes."

The fan favorite who has won 40 events on the PGA tour described various state and federal levies and concluded that his tax rate now exceeds 60%. The sticker shock is understandable, now that President Obama has succeeded in raising the top income-tax rate this year to 39.6% from 35% and the top Medicare rate almost a full point to 3.8%. Meanwhile, Governor Jerry Brown persuaded Californians last fall to raise the top state income tax rate to 13.3%.

Mr. Mickelson was beginning to spark a useful conversation about the way that confiscatory tax rates discourage productive effort. But the critics began to emerge on various websites, and, alas, on Monday night the golfer took a rhetorical mulligan. "Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public," Mr. Mickelson said in a statement. "I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend to not let it happen again."

Too bad Lefty will no longer help educate the lefties on the incentive effects of marginal tax rates. But he can still vote with his Gulfstream and take his tour winnings and his endorsement income to a more friendly locale, such as Florida, Nevada or Texas. All three still have no state income tax, which may be one reason Tiger Woods and so many other golfers (including many Europeans) also live in Florida. Expect a continued migration.

RUSH: Phil Mickelson apologized for talking about his 62 to 63% tax rate. Word surfaced a couple days ago that Mickelson was thinking of leaving California and selling his house. Prop 30 passed, and that forced him out of a deal to buy the San Diego Padres. (paraphrased) "For crying out loud, I can't afford to buy anything with 63% of my income being taxed." He said, "I may have to leave the state, sell my house, and give up the Padres," and then something happened, and all hell descended on Mickelson.
Mickelson is one of the 1% paying the freight for everybody and yet he's one under fire. He's not allowed to complain. I don't even want to say that he was complaining, but I wouldn't care if he was. But he's not allowed. He's supposed to sit there and take it. He's supposed to sit there and smile at 63%, and it's gonna get higher if Democrats have their way. So somebody got to Mickelson and said, "Look, bud, you can't start complaining."
Mickelson just blurts this stuff out in a stream-of-consciousness answer to a question, and there must have been all hell descend on this guy. I don't know what happened.
I don't know who got to him. It might be his agent. "Hey, Phil, you're going to have apologize here. Back off. You're a man of the people. You're doing these ads for Big Oil and Enbrel," whatever it is, "back off." So he goes out and basically regrets speaking publicly on taxes. He apologized, he regretted not keeping his opinion to himself. I remember last spring, during our annual spring fling Kathryn and I have friends in and spend a weekend and it's always a lot of fun and it's great people. And one of the discussion topics was the upcoming presidential race and campaign.
There were a lot of sports people at this spring fling, and I said, "You know, it kind frustrates me, a lot of athletes who have a lot of influence with people, role model and all that, who in no way support Obama, no way support what's going on. Why don't they speak up? They could influence a lot of people."
A friend of mine said -- and every one of these guys is idolized by the media, by the way. I don't want to mention any names, but big time quarterbacks and shortstops, you know, running backs, golfers. My friend said, "If one of these guys speaks up, the media is going to go out and tar and feather this guy. It doesn't matter, the media is gonna destroy 'em. And don't forget, Rush, these guys survive on their endorsements. They survive by not being political. Once you take a position on anything, you're statistically gonna have half the people who hear it disagree with you."
And here's a living example of it. Phil Mickelson is loved and adored by the sports media, and he's cultivated that. It's part of the image making process. So I guarantee you, somebody, an agent or maybe even one of his corporate sponsors, "Hey, Phil, you gotta dial that back. We just don't want you going political." So he did. He apologized and said that he regretted not keeping his opinion to himself.
Now, during a press conference yesterday, Tiger Woods admitted that he moved to Florida in 1996 because of California's tax rates. You got 18 years, 17 years here ahead of Phil Mickelson. A lot of athletes live in Florida for that very reason. A lot of athletes live in the Orlando area. That's where Woods lives. Well, Tiger lives down here now, but they come here because there's no income tax, and the weather. Golfers year round practice and so forth, makes all the sense in the world. So Woods, during a press conference yesterday, admitted it, (paraphrasing), "I moved outta here back in 1996 for that reason." Woods was at Torrey Pines in La Jolla. He said, "I enjoy Florida, but I understand what Phil, I think, was trying to say." Now, there's a way out of this for these guys. Now Tiger's in trouble, too.
Folks, look, I'm not trying to put myself in their league, but I moved out of New York to a no-income-tax-state for that reason, and I am audited every year by the state of New York, still, after being gone since 1997. I'm in the middle of a nine-month audit right now for just the last year. I didn't live there. I didn't work there. I didn't earn any money in New York, but it doesn't matter. They're so cash strapped they've got a division in Albany, I'm convinced, that just follows people who leave and move to no-income-tax states.
I remember I announced it on the program one day. I got e-mails and phone calls from people that accused me of being unpatriotic by screwing New York, by abandoning New York, by moving. I said, "Why am I not smart?" Why is this not an intelligent decision? Why shouldn't I go? If I've got the opportunity to keep more of what I earn, why shouldn't I do that? It's my money, I earn it, I'll put it to much better use than a bunch of government bureaucrats. I spend my money in the private sector. I employ people. I provide benefits. I'm a generous guy. What harm could there be, me being in control of my money? "You selfish, you unpatriotic..." I'm sure Mickelson got the same thing. Anyway, what Tiger and Phil could do, if they both come out in favor of gay marriage, everything will be fine.
Diane in North Sutton, New Hampshire, great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: How are you?
RUSH: Very good. Thank you.
CALLER: It's a pleasure to talk to you.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. Thanks so much.
CALLER: Great. What I had to say was that I think Phil Mickelson is getting a really bad shake overall. I mean, why is he being chastised for his comments on taxes?
RUSH: Because he's selfish! I'll tell you, it's a great question because Phil Mickelson is being accused of being selfish. He ought to recognize that people of this country have been given the shaft by the rich for a number of years. It's about time the rich paid their fair share, damn it. It's about time the rich gave back. It's about time the rich gave back what they stole. And Mickelson, he made the mistake, he doesn't care about anybody. He's only in it for him. He wants what he makes. He doesn't want to share with anybody. That's the attitude. And his agent or somebody got to him and said, "Phil, here's what we're dealing with," described what I just said, so Phil said, "Okay, I'll go out and apologize."
CALLER: Right. But however, we could make the point that, when did he start complaining about his taxes? I mean, he didn't complain about it at 40%, 45. He didn't even complaint about it at 50 or 55%. I mean, he didn't start complaining until he reached 62 or 63%.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: So you could make the argument that, I mean, how selfish is that?
RUSH: Oh, I agree. I agree. The only thing, not to be a nitpicker here, we don't know if he was complaining privately. We do know his tipping point was 60%. That's when he decided to go public. It's a great point.

RUSH: Look, there's Phil Mickelson on TV doing an Enbrel commercial. You know what that is? I think it's an arthritis drug that you shoot up yourself. It comes with a syringe. They gave it to me when they were trying to save my hearing. And I used it. Phil's a spokesman, and that's probably one of the reasons why he back tracked.
You ought to read some of the sports media guys talking about Mickelson. Mickelson did not ask for a change in tax policy. He didn't join some politician's campaign. He didn't run out there and start his own cause to lower taxes. All he did was publicly say, "I may not be able to afford to live in California." And the sports media descended on this guy. The sports media is every bit as left-wing as their news media counterparts are. They started laughing at him and making fun of him and calling him insensitive and cruel and selfish.
So Phil has done what most people do under such assault. He's apologized. He asked for forgiveness. He declared he was insensitive. Yes, he shouldn't have ever talked about it. Yes, he should realize there are people living paycheck to paycheck, and he let that slip from his mind. Oh, it's so insensitive a thing he did and pulled the comments back. He's vowed never, ever again to speak in public about it. This is how they shut you down. And it was the sports media. Some people say it was his agent. I'm sure his agent was in there like everybody else getting scared of what the sports media was doing.
One piece, AP. The author is Tim Dahlberg, the headline: "For Phil Mickelson, it's Not Easy Being Rich -- It's not always easy being rich, as Phil Mickelson reminded us the other day. There are taxes to pay -- apparently lots of them -- and the price of a tank of jet fuel seems to go up every day. A million dollars a week just doesn't go as far as it used to, now that the wealthy are paying more in taxes."
Every one of the snarky liberals, I don't care where you find them through the media or throughout the country, these are the people complaining about the price increase on their electric bill, phone bill, cable bill, doesn't matter. They're constantly complaining about the rising costs of things, leading the charge in fact. The cost of government never bothers them. The price of government never bothers them. The higher the better. The more the better. And that is quite telling. It explains a lot about them, they're statists. They believe in government as the focal point, the universe, the center of everybody's life. But no other institution that needs to raise prices to stay in business or show profits, they're never justified. They're always screwing people or ripping people off. They don't care about their customers. Government, you shouldn't even utter a syllable of disagreement when your government says the price goes up.
RUSH: So Phil Mickelson has to lay prostate. He has to apologize. He has to beg for forgiveness. He has to confess to insensitivity. He has to basically say, "Yep, I'm a selfish, mean guy. I really don't want to be, I'm going to try not to be in the future, I'm sorry." Meanwhile, the captain of New York Yankees, short stop Derek Jeter, as we speak is at the Davos World Economic Forum. Derek Jeter, short stop of the New York Yankees, is at Davos, Switzerland participating in the World Economic Forum.
Many of you are wondering, what would Derek Jeter be doing there? I mean, there's snow on the ground, can't be playing baseball, can't be rehabbing the broken ankle. What's he doing? Derek Jeter, while Phil Mickelson is apologizing and begging forgiveness and admitting to insensitivity over the fact that he only keeps 38 cents of every dollar he earns, and that's the way to look at it, by the way. Not that he's paying 62%. He's keeping 38 cents of every dollar. And he's selfish, and he's greedy. And he's insensitive for pointing it out.
Meanwhile, the captain of the New York Yankees is at the Davos World Economic Forum helping promote climate change. "While the Yankee captain isn't exactly known for getting involved in politics, Jeter says he hopes in the wake of Hurricane Sandy that climate change is addressed as global political and business leaders gather in Switzerland. Jeter, who is sponsored by Gatorade, was invited by Pepsi, which owns the brand. 'I was in New York for Hurricane Sandy. It's just something that's gotten so much attention,'" this climate change.
So they're using Jeter who, I don't know him, so I don't know how much of this stuff he knows. Anyway, a lot of people look up to Derek Jeter, young kids: "Mommy, mommy, Derek Jeter says the hurricane was caused by global warming and climate change. Derek Jeter says we've got to stop it. Mommy, we've got to go get a new car. What are we going to do mommy?" And that's how it happens.

RUSH: Last night on the Fox News Channel with Neil Cavuto, Stuart Varney guest hosted. He had on Keith Ellison, the congressman from Minnesota. Stuart Varney said, "Let's deal with the fairness question. I want to talk to you about the case of Phil Mickelson, California resident. On every dollar that Phil Mickelson makes, he has to pay 63¢ to the state and federal governments in income taxes. Is that fair?"
ELLISON: "Fair" calls forth the question, "Compared to what?" It's fair compared to allowing somebody who is surviving on minimal income like a senior citizen to cut home heating oil, which is what we're gonna have to do if the sequester goes into place. It's fair compared to asking a poor family on food stamps to get by with less. It's fair compared to say we're gonna cut down on the investment that we make into innovation, medical innovation for brand-new industries to put even more people back to work. So it's a matter of, "Compared to what?"
RUSH: Now, I just love the way this floating definition of "fairness" gets employed by these people on the left. "Fair compared to what?" How about fair compared to Phil Mickelson? How about fair compared to how hard he works? How about fair compared to the irresponsibility with which government is spending and wasting the money it's collecting from him? Anyway, Varney said, "So you think that 63%...?" The way to look at this, folks, is you throw the 63% number out. Phil Mickelson keeps 37¢ of every $1. That's the way to put this in perspective. That's the way to understand this. Keith Ellison just said: Yep, it's totally fair that Mickelson should only keep 37¢ of every dollar that he earns, and he wasn't finished...
ELLISON: Asking Phil Mickelson for able to say more money so that women and children can have a meal, is fair. Yes, I do. I think it's fair to ask Phil Mickelson for a little bit more money to make sure that we can continue to invest in infrastructure in this country, and for making that groundbreaking research and medicine is paid for, to make sure that people who have the basics, that college education is affordable. It's fair to ask Phil Mickelson to help with that. As a patriotic American, I'm sure Phil Mickelson would agree.
RUSH: Of course.
"As a patriotic American," Phil would agree. Do you realize how absurd this is? We are in debt to the tune of close to $17 trillion. We have spent $17 trillion that we don't have over the course of this nation's history. But in the last four years, we have spent $6 trillion of that $17 trillion. Obama is the owner of $6 trillion of spending that we don't have. We spent $6 trillion! I want you just to visualize that. We have spent $6 trillion more than we have. We have an annual budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. We are spending money like it has never been spent before. We're spending money two and three and four times on the same items. Food stamps? There are 48 million Americans on food stamps!
There was a story in the newspaper the other day. A woman was robbed. She was robbed of her purse. The purse cost $400. In the purse was $800 of cash, a bunch of credit cards and her food stamps. So a woman with a $400 purse, $800 in cash, and a bunch of credit cards, is also on food stamps. There are a whole lot of people on food stamps that ought not be, but the government is soliciting for them. They're advertising for them. In Mexico we're running radio commercials advising future immigrants how to get on food stamps once they get into America, once they get into the country.
So we're spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year and only two trillion of it do we actually have. The rest we're borrowing or printing. And yet here comes Keith Ellison, "Yeah, Phil Mickelson needs to pay more so that we can continue to invest in infrastructure. So that we can make sure that groundbreaking research in medicine is paid for." The government doesn't do any of that. Drug companies engage in their own R&D. But let's say the government did pay for it, the government's spending all that anyway. The government's spending all of that and more, but they're not spending much in infrastructure. What they're spending it on to me is irrelevant here.
What Keith Ellison is doing is trying to make it sound like we're cutting back on all these items. We're cutting back on infrastructure. We're not. We're cutting back on research and development. We're not cutting back. We're not cutting back on college education. It's getting more expensive. It's not becoming more affordable. Phil Mickelson's money and everybody else's tax money is being irresponsibly spent. In fact, the point of raising taxes any more is not even about the money. It's about punishment. It's about punishing success. It's about making sure that people do not become wealthy. It's about making sure that people cannot build a nest egg. That's the purpose of taxation.
Here we have a member of Congress who actually wants to make the case that it is patriotic that somebody should only keep 37 cents of every dollar that they earn under all of these false premises that we're not spending on infrastructure, that we're not spending enough on medicine, that we're not spending enough on infrastructure, and we're not spending enough on tuition. And it's Phil Mickelson's fault to boot, and therefore Phil Mickelson would be patriotic and he would agree that it's necessary that he should pay 63 cents of every dollar so that these expenses don't get cut.
In fact, there aren't any cuts. There aren't even any imaginary cuts anymore. This is just flat-out absurd. This is bordering on banana republic totalitarianism, this kind of thinking, these kinds of accusations, these kinds of misrepresentations. Low-information voters actually think, when they hear stuff like this, that we're cutting back on all these items. We're cutting back on children's health care. We're cutting back on research and development. It's all because of the Republicans, too, don't you know. The Republicans are causing this. The Republicans are cutting all this spending.
There isn't any spending reduction. We're spending money we're never gonna have. And it's Phil Mickelson's fault, by the way, and other rich people that all these items are being short-changed. And they're not being. This stuff irritates me like I can't begin to tell you. This kind of demagoguery, this kind of lying to the American people, misrepresentation of things that are happening. In the meantime, the amount of spending we're engaging in is unsustainable and it is causing great harm to the very fabric and foundations of this country. The institutions, traditions and all that that have made this country great, they're all under assault now, and they're still not happy. With all of this spending, it's still not enough. They still have to lie and misrepresent and try to tell people that all these precious items are being cut back, and until we take 63 cents from Phil Mickelson and others like him we're not gonna be able to continue to fund these programs.
If we in this country only spent what we collected, like everybody else has to in their life, we would still have plenty of money to do everything we're doing now. If we only spent two trillion -- do you realize, in 1987, the federal budget was $900 billion. Now we're up to two trillion, 3.5 trillion. The budget's 3.5 trillion dollars, this is absurd. And in the midst of all this they insult our intelligence and tell us that we're not spending enough yet.
RUSH: Keith Ellison. We need 63 cents of every dollar Phil Mickelson makes so that we don't cut back on infrastructure. We just authorized $50 billion for recovery efforts after Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast. Fifty billion. That's infrastructure. We're not short-changing anybody in this country on anything. The only people being short-changed are the people that produce.
Here's another thing that is just really gnaws at me. Who the hell is Keith Ellison to dictate all this? He's a congressman from Minnesota. Big whoop. Where is the constitutional authority for some hack federal politician to judge what anybody should or shouldn't have? Who is he to get to sit here and say, other than he was asked a question, but he's one of 435 members of House. Big whoop. So Keith Ellison thinks it's unfair for Mickelson to pay anything less than 63 cents out of every dollar. Where's his constitutional authority to judge what anybody should or shouldn't have? What do you mean, fairness in compared to what?
So he comes up with his own definition of fairness. He comes up with his own theories on who ought to have what and who ought not have what and who has more than what they need, and then be able to use the law to impose that. I'll tell you, folks, it irritates me, all of the lying and all the misrepresentation, the demagoguery that goes into all of this. We're not cutting back on anything. And the sequester is not that big of a cutback on anything, either. We're not reducing spending. We never have reduced spending and there's no reduced spending on the table. Nobody's even proposing any. And this guy runs around and tries to make people think that we're gonna close down colleges, we're gonna close down hospitals, we're gonna close down repairs on roads and bridges.
Obama does it all the time, using all of this fear.
Now this newspaper, it's Brunswick, Georgia. Here's the little blurb in the newspaper. "A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before 5pm Sunday. The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive. The woman said the car had been locked, and the purse was in the back seat. The purse was valued at $400, her wallet was valued at $200, and she said there was $800 cash in the purse, according to the police report. Also missing were the woman’s food stamp cards."
Oh, poor woman. Oh, isn't it just the case, folks. A $400 purse, $200 wallet, $800 in cash, and her food stamp cards are missing as part of the theft.
RUSH: Here is Mike in Troup County, Georgia. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Dittos from one of those Tea Party kooks.
RUSH: Ha! Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: I'm calling 'cause it seems that the crass media has not really understood that Phil Mickelson's actions were not against the federal government but against the state of California, because it doesn't matter whether he moves to Texas or to Alaska or Timbuktu, New Jersey. His federal taxes are gonna be the same. He was just getting rid of that extra 13%.
RUSH: Well, not anymore.
CALLER: (chuckling) Well, not anymore. But that was what he was attempting to do. So when Ellison says that Phil was going to hurt all these federal programs, what he was planning on doing would not do that.
RUSH: Well, this is actually an excellent point. What's happening here, folks, is that our buddy Mike from Troup County, Georgia, is reacting to the demagogue, Keith Ellison. In those two sound bites we played, Keith Ellison was with Stuart Varney on Fox yesterday on the Neil Cavuto show. Keith Ellison said (summarized), "You're damn right Mickelson owes the 63%! You're damn right! We need infrastructure. We need investments into roads and bridges. We need investments into medical R&D."
What Mike's pointing out is: "Wait a minute! Mickelson wasn't talking about abandoning his federal taxes. He was talking about leaving California. So none of Keith Ellison's precious federal programs would be impacted." That's an excellent point. Now, not to throw water on your great call (because it's a great, great point), but that's not why Phil Mickelson got in trouble. Phil Mickelson got in trouble because he dared to voice what he was thinking. Phil Mickelson got in trouble because he made himself a perfect target for the left who wants to intimidate people into accepting their policies.
There's another lesson here, too, and it's exactly what you say.
It's the concept of federalism. Mickelson, as is everybody else in the country, is totally free to leave California and move somewhere else where the tax burden is less. (Of course, he can't now, because all hell descended on him when he voiced nothing other than the fact he was thinking about it.) But you can't leave the country. If you don't like the taxes in New York, you can move. If you don't like them in Montana or wherever, you can move. But federal taxes, you can't do anything about, other renouncing your citizenship and giving up your passport.
Most people are not gonna do that.
So in this case, people said, "We don't want that kind of freedom! We don't want people thinking that way. We don't want people even pondering not paying taxes, and we don't want people like Mickelson giving other people any ideas." So a guy like Mickelson, who is totally beholden to public opinion because he endorses products, must be liked. He's a spokesman for many corporate sponsors, so he's totally beholden to public opinion. Phil Mickelson must be loved and adored. Phil Mickelson cannot in any way approach controversy or he will lose his sponsorships.
He will. Others wouldn't, but Mickelson would because of factors. So he had to immediately apologize, he had to immediately rein it back in, and now he's almost stuck in California, 'cause now if he does move, they're gonna tar and feather him as an ingrate who's somebody shirking their responsibilities, somebody who's failing to meet their patriotic duty. (interruption) What, Snerdley, what? (interruption) No, no, no. (interruption) Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah. Snerdley says, "I thought the rich had all these loopholes." The asset wealthy have loopholes. There aren't any loopholes for the income earner today. There aren't any loopholes.
If your income is earned, your tax rate's what it is. You can't deduct your mortgage over a million bucks. You can't deduct your charitable or any other deductions over your tax rate, and that's gonna be even less. There's not a whole lot you can do with earned income. Now, you can structure as much income as possible. You can file as a sub-S and say that 90% of your income is bonus and not pay your full Medicare share, but that's about it. It's the asset wealthy who have all of the carve-outs. The people who are wealthy because of their annual income, there's not much left. There aren't that many tricks. There aren't that many loopholes.
That's another piece of demagoguery, folks.
Don't doubt me on this!
There just aren't that many loopholes anymore. That's just typical Obama, left-wing demagoguery to accuse highly successful people of "shirking their responsibility," when a loophole is nothing other than something that's in the tax law. A loophole is now associated with cheating, is it not? Your average low-information voter hears the words "tax loophole," and says, "Ah! It's a way for the rich to get out of paying that I don't have." No. It's just the law. You know what a loophole is? It's the mortgage interest deduction. That's a loophole. It's a carve-out.
It's the government deciding that we're not gonna tax certain expenditures.
It's put in there for the housing market and the lending institutions and all that, and it may go the way of Sam Hill. They may take that away, but that is an example of a loophole. So every one of you who deduct the interest on your mortgage, you have a tax loophole! A loophole is simply tax law. It's not cheating. It's not finding a way to not pay your taxes that nobody's ever seen. It's not something that you get away with that you don't get caught doing. It's nothing illegal. But that's how they're all portrayed. It's how tax loopholes are portrayed.