With the start of Spring Training, and the regular season just around the corner, Merrill Kelly’s decision to sign with the Arizona Diamondbacks instead of the San Diego Padres is more than a baseball story; it’s a case study in how tax policy shapes real‑world choices. In a recent interview, Kelly didn’t mince words about the California: “They take too much money out of my pocket, man. The taxes over there are a different level.”

California politicians and commentators often insist they can legislate without consequence, but Merrill Kelly exposed the truth: incentives matter, and California’s tax code is driving people, including elite athletes, away. Kelly’s choice mirrors a larger trend. We recently highlighted how California has experienced significant outward migration in recent years, driven by high taxes, high costs, and regulatory burdens that make it harder for families and businesses to stay. To put it bluntly, when a state makes it expensive to live or work there, people leave. Like the high-profile tech entrepreneurs fleeing the state, professional athletes like Kelly are simply another visible example because their salaries make the math impossible to ignore.

The Math Behind Kelly’s Decision

In December, Kelly signed a two-year contract with the Diamondbacks worth $40 million, meaning $20 million per season. On a $20 million salary, California’s top marginal income tax rate of 13.3 percent would cost Kelly more than $2.6 million per year. In Arizona, with a flat 2.5 percent tax rate, the taxes would only amount to about $500,000. That’s a more than $2 million difference annually on income taxes alone. California’s additional taxes (1.3 percent State Disability Insurance tax and higher effective property tax rates, among others) would grow the disparity by several hundred thousand dollars more. In total, Merrill Kelly will end up keeping almost $2.5 million more per season just by signing with the Diamondbacks instead of the Padres. This comes as no surprise given that the Tax Foundation ranks California as 48 on its state tax competitiveness index, 34 spots lower than Arizona.

Arizona isn’t just a low‑tax state. It’s a state where baseball is a major economic driver and players like Kelly contribute to a broader sector that benefits residents, businesses, and local governments. The Cactus League is one of Arizona’s most important annual economic events. The Common Sense Institute projects that out‑of‑state visitors will spend between $210 million and $590 million during the current five‑week spring training season, generating $210 million to $953 million in GDP and supporting 668 to 9,697 jobs statewide, with more than 1 million fans across ten stadiums. It’s a major seasonal economic boost for restaurants, hotels, retailers, and transportation providers across the Valley.

Additionally, when a team like the Diamondbacks remains competitive and makes a deep postseason run, or even makes it to the World Series like the Diamondbacks did in 2023, the economic impact multiplies. Hosting World Series games drives major tourism spending, national media exposure, and local business activity, bringing surges in hotel occupancy, restaurant revenue, and regional visibility that can’t be replicated by ordinary tourism campaigns. In other words, keeping good players like Merrill Kelly isn’t just good for the Diamondbacks. It can be a boost for Arizona’s economy.

On the other hand, the Padres have never won a World Series and haven’t played in one in 28 years. It will remain a challenge when every contract they offer comes with a built‑in penalty: California’s tax code. California doesn’t just discourage people from moving there. It punishes them for showing up. States that let people keep more of what they earn will attract talent. And states that don’t will lose talent, whether professional athletes or entrepreneurs. When you tax success at the highest rate in the country, like California, people will choose to succeed somewhere else.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers this week used his final State of the State address to take a victory lap, devoting most of his remarks to praising his own record rather than outlining meaningful solutions for the challenges facing Wisconsin. The speech echoed a familiar pattern: expansive claims about past accomplishments, vague promises about future priorities, and a conspicuous lack of substantive policy proposals. For a governor nearing the end of his tenure, the absence of a clear roadmap was striking.

Evers repeatedly highlighted the number of bills he signed, the dollars he spent, and the programs launched under his administration, but empty statistics are not the same as actual results for Wisconsin. Many of the issues he raised, including education funding, remain unresolved after his eight years in office. The governor’s self‑congratulatory tone stood in sharp contrast to the limited substance of his proposals. Rather than offering concrete solutions to affordability, public safety, or government spending, Evers largely recycled talking points from previous years. His address leaned heavily on rhetoric about “bipartisanship,” even as lawmakers have increasingly been forced to turn to constitutional amendments to bypass Evers’ vetoes.

One such amendment aims to undo Evers’ infamous 400‑year partial veto, which extended school funding increases until the year 2425 by removing individual digits of a bill passed by the legislature. Evers defended the veto during his address and denied it would lead to higher property taxes, despite the obvious implications of a veto designed to override legislative intent for centuries.

Light on Solutions, Heavy on Spending

Evers’ policy proposals in the speech were modest at best. His new initiatives—including a plan to increase green energy purchases and a domestic‑violence awareness partnership with the Milwaukee Bucks—may be well‑intentioned, but they do little to address the structural issues he spent the rest of the speech warning of. He emphasized his record on tax cuts but did nothing to move the legislature in favor of proposals that will conform state tax law with recent federal changes on issues like taxing tips and overtime pay and bring additional relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.

On education, he again called for “fully funding” schools while hiding behind his 400-year veto and without offering any plan to improve outcomes or accountability for Wisconsin students. Importantly, Evers also provided no meaningful strategy to reduce regulatory burdens or expand economic opportunity.

One of the most telling moments of the speech was Evers’ threat to call the Legislature into a special session later this year if the legislature did not move forward with his preferred approach to blocking partisan gerrymandering. This was framed as a call to action, but in reality it underscored his reliance on procedural pressure rather than persuasion or consensus‑building. Special sessions have become a political tool for Evers to generate headlines and cast blame, not advance workable policy.

In the end, Evers’ final State of the State address was less a policy speech than an act of self-promotion. It celebrated spending, recounted past initiatives, and leaned heavily on self‑praise. What it did not do was offer Wisconsin a clear vision for the future or meaningful solutions to the challenges the state faces.

The Wisconsin Legislature was back in session in January 2026 prompting a flurry of activity.  Three constitutional amendment resolutions were approved, and proposals to provide tax relief are moving forward. With divided government shaping the agenda, Republicans in the Legislature have moved their priorities while tensions with Democratic Governor Tony Evers continue. Against that backdrop, both chambers advanced a series of high‑profile constitutional amendments to bypass Gov. Evers’ veto. Two of the resolutions to amend Wisconsin’s Constitution received final approval for the second time, as required by the state Constitution and will be placed on the statewide ballot in November, while the third awaits final approval in the Assembly.  

Perhaps the most important of these proposed amendments, SJR 116, would restrict the governor’s partial veto authority by prohibiting its use to create or increase taxes or fees. The measure is a direct response to Gov. Tony Evers’ 2023 use of his line-item veto to remove single digits from the state budget to unilaterally extend a school spending increase for 400 years. As a result, property taxes in the state will continue to go up without being authorized by the legislature and governor during the traditional budget process. While the veto itself didn’t directly raise taxes, by increasing the limit annually for 400 years, Evers left the door open for school boards to raise taxes each of those years. Senate Republicans pushed through the amendment to rein in executive overreach and limit the impact of future tax increases. Once approved by the Assembly, SJR 116 will be sent to voters to decide in November. 

The next amendment, AJR 102, seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across state and local government by prohibiting preferential treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, contracting, and administration, with the goal of restoring fairness and merit‑based decision‑making. 

The third measure, AJR 10, would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a declared emergency. Introduced in response to actions taken during the COVID‑19 pandemic, the proposal passed with little debate and will also be on the November ballot. 

Beyond the constitutional amendments, with an anticipated budget surplus, Republican proposals to align state law with the federal income taxes cut in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill by cutting taxes on overtime and tips, among other changes, are gaining traction. While Gov. Evers expressed support for a no tax on tips change earlier in the legislative session, he has not committed to signing the bill and numerous Democrats voted “No” on passage in both the Assembly and Senate. The overtime proposal is more expensive but has made some progress; it passed the Assembly with bipartisan support and is awaiting a public hearing in the Senate.  

Additionally, the Assembly passed a fast‑tracked bill regulating data centers by requiring the Public Service Commission to shield ratepayers from additional utility costs related to the facilities, mandating that renewable energy sources serving data centers be located on‑site, placing requirements on water usage and requiring a bond sufficient to cover and required reclamation with the DNR. 

With less than two months to go and multiple constitutional amendments now headed to voters, the Legislature’s January activity signals several contentious weeks ahead.  The last official “general business” day of the 2025-2026 legislative session is March 19, 2026. Legislators are expected to advance numerous administrative rule reforms, which will likely be vetoed by Governor Evers.  Negotiations between legislative leaders and the governor’s office will likely focus on increased education funding in exchange for elimination of the 400-year property tax increase, the debate over funding and the future of WisconsinEye, Wisconsin’s public affairs cable network, remains unresolved.

The Georgia General Assembly kicked off its 40-day legislative session earlier this month. This session is a continuation of the two-year session started last year, meaning legislation from last year carried over into this year as well. Between the bills carried over, and new introductions, the General Assembly has seen more than three thousand pieces of legislation in total.

As with sessions in recent years, tax relief for Georgians will be front and center in the General Assembly. Importantly, legislative leaders will have to work out between themselves what that relief looks like. While Governor Kemp and Senate leaders want to prioritize cutting state income taxes, House Speaker Jon Burns is focused on cutting property taxes. Burns’ is spearheading a plan to eliminate property taxes on residences, while the Senate is working on a plan to lower the state income tax below five percent.

While the leadership sorts out a plan for tax relief, both chambers have continued their work, given the short session schedule.

The first step to carry new legislation into the current year’s session is for the legislative chamber to recommit a bill. Recommitting a bill allows legislators to pick up where progress left off at the end of last session and indicates what bills may move forward over the next several weeks. The bills recommitted by the legislature so far include additional restrictions on SNAP benefits, changes to the tracking of education requirements for professional licenses, and a new tax credit for firearms storage devices.

The first bill of the new session to pass, that will be sent to the governor for signing, prevents local zoning restrictions on firearms storage. The bill was a carryover from last year and only needed to pass the Senate this time around.