The sfear of influence Estase discussed a few weeks ago reared its head with the Mother Jones video where Mitt Romney discusses how he feels 47% of the nation is unwilling to vote for him since it pays no income taxes, and much of that same group receives government benefits. The previous post said that if Romney went after the issue of cutting taxes, that the left would paint that as a self-interested statement rather than a matter of broader economic policy. The controversy the left has attempted to gin up over Romney's remarks have followed this vein. Although Romney didn't broach the issue of people unwilling to confront the fact that some draw benefits from the government, and hence stand to gain nothing from a tax cut in the most delicate way, he was absolutely right. As Justice Holmes observed over 100 years ago, any time one offers to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's vote. The only problem is, Paul won't like to hear about Peter's grievance, and will be altogether happy to have Mr. Politician tell him that he is entitled to have Peter "pay his fair share." Paul will also go to the Occupy rally, and between episodes of public defecation, shout about how the 1% should have their money given to the 99%. The statistics are of course, faulty. It is the 47% who enjoy the benefits of the 53%. And the top 5% pays almost half of the taxes in the United States. Romney needs, of course, to confront this issue head-on. But, just as he wants to steer clear of the social issues most Republicans care at least a little about, Romney also seems afraid of talking about economic issues. So if Romney will let the left get away with their heuristic of how Romney doesn't care about the middle class, how does he expect to win the election. Bitter a pill as it is to swallow, Romney must talk about his sfear of influence, because it is, right now, the main thing he has to run upon.