Lots of hubbub this week over Phil Mickelson’s comments about the “radical changes” he’s planning on making because of the increased tax burden he’s facing as a California resident and recent changes in the federal and state tax codes. As Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, Mickelson is nothing more than yet another example of what happens when the “static tax analysis” of government bureaucrats meets the “dynamic tax analysis” of the individual:

All right, class, here’s the lesson on tax analysis. According to static analysis, used by proponents of tax hikes [Ed. note: i.e., Democrats and liberals], raising the rate on people like Mickelson will derive a predictable amount of additional revenues because those proponents assume that the wealthy don’t have the resources or the intelligence to adjust to the new policy. Dynamic tax analysis assumes that raising taxes will prompt the people with the most resources — like Mickelson — to change their behavior to meet the new tax environment.

Tax-hike proponents think California will get a bigger cut of Mickelson’s earnings. Dynamic analysis proponents think California won’t get any of Mickelson’s earnings, because Mickelson’s likely to move to a state with no state income tax, or at least lower rates. Which do you think is the more realistic assumption, and not just for Mickelson but for the rest of the well-resourced high-end earners looking for ways to minimize the bite on their checks? Oh, let’s not always see the same hands…

Don’t get me wrong: no one, including yours truly, is going to feel sorry for Phil anytime soon. Were his comments insensitive? Oh, I suppose – if you had just lost your job you might resent his comments. But my feeling is that this is a risk/reward society: the guy has worked extremely hard to get where he’s gotten, and he has every right to try and keep as much of the money he makes for his family as he can. Were I in his shoes I’d be thinking the same thing. And you know you would too.

Me? I hope Phil pulls up stakes and moves here to next door neighbor Arizona, where we went to school. We’d love to have him here.