Mitt Romney’s characterization of 47% of the American electorate as “victims” who are “dependent on government” and refuse to take “personal responsibility” for their lives. . . appears to have categorized a large segment of his party’s own voters as supporters of President Barack Obama. . . . The unspoken truth is that, compared to “blue-staters,” those who live in red states exhibit less responsibility, on average, in their personal behavior: they are less physically fit, less careful in their sexual behavior, more prone to inflict harm on themselves and others through smoking and drinking, and more likely to receive federal subsidies.
From here. See also a more detailed analysis by Brad DeLong.
Also, since when do Republicans favor working and middle class tax increases, which is essentially what Romney has advocated when he calls for these people to receive fewer government benefits net of taxes paid?
This certainly isn't the philosophy of Republican safe state Alaska, where they don't have state income taxes and pay every man, woman and child who lives there a fixed chunk of money simply by virtue of living in the state. According to Romney, all Alaskans except oil executives should be voting for President Obama. Likewise, residents of swing states like New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida, which also lack state income taxes, should also clearly support President Obama in 2012, according to Romney, if their citizens vote their enlightened self-interest.
Meanwhile, New York City and Boston, whose residents pay some of the highest combined local, state and federal taxes in the land, must clearly be Romney supporters. Right? Personal responsibility may resonnate among the members of the vanishing breed of New England Republicans, but most members of the regional party of the regional party of the American South and the Southern diaspora in the rest of the nation take a dimmer view of this approach.
There seem to have been some good reasons that Romney went into business rather than politics as his first career.