Nevada’s own Congressional Representative from Bundyland can’t seem to get his mind around why he’s drawing so much fire from Democrats for his insensitive and inane comment about disabled people.
“Hardy, asked about the speech after a House vote Thursday in Washington, said he did not remember making the comment and suggested it was altered or taken out of context.
“I would like to have it analyzed,” he said. “People try to manipulate things. I’ve seen that happen early on.” Hardy was referring to the flap during the 2014 campaign when video surfaced in which he agreed with Mitt Romney’s infamous comment about 47 percent of people living off the government.” [LVRJ]
This is one better than only using the old cliché, “I was taken out of context.” Without engaging his brain before putting his mouth in gear, Hardy posits not one but three possibilities. (1) I didn’t say it. (Wrong: It’s been recorded – anyone can record anything these days without a Reel-to-Reel set up.) (2) It was altered. (Nice try but probably not – it was too ‘good’ all by itself. Or, (3) It’s being “manipulated.” There’s no need for manipulation, of any kind, Representative Hardy just cranks up his mouth, inanity ensues. However, as the LVRJ article reports, Hardy isn’t finished:
“My nature is to defend those who can’t take care of themselves, that’s what I believe,” he said. “I’ve always been a strong supporter of people to be able to get help when needed.”
“People get paid to distort the truth and try to manipulate things,” Hardy said. “That kind of conversation never went on. I think the Democrats ought to be embarrassed.”
If anything, he said, people with disability should be angry at being used by Democrats “to sell their game.”
“People get paid to distort things,” he said. “I’m the No. 1 target, folks.” [LVRJ]
Merciful Heavens, Representative Hardy (R-NV4) has donned the cloak of victimhood, swathing himself in self pity, and begs us to ask his forgiveness for being so mean to him as to call out his hypocritical and mean-spirited remark.
Let’s move back to that first comment above (“My nature is to defend…”) and see if his actions and associations match his assertion. First, Representative Hardy is a Republican, and his Republican majority in the House had the following ideas about how to develop a budget; they would:
“… propose major spending cuts to programs such as Medicare, health care subsidies, food stamps and the Medicaid program for the poor and elderly to produce a budget that’s balanced. Such cuts, if actually implemented later, would likely slash spending by $5 trillion or so over the coming decade from budgets that are presently on track to spend almost $50 trillion over that timeframe.” [CBS]
So, Representative Hardy favors cuts to Medicare, a program for those over 65 years of age, who prior to the program were denied private health care insurance or could only purchase it at exorbitant prices, and therefore “couldn’t take care of themselves.” Food Stamps?
The SNAP budget took a 5% whack in 2013, and another round of cuts in the 2014 Farm Bill. The winners in HR 2642 were the farmers, especially corporate farming, and the losers were those who depend on assistance to put food on their tables at meal time. [NYT] It appears that those cuts were insufficient for Republicans, so they proposed another round of cuts in 2015. [Slate] Depending upon which GOP proposal is studied, the cuts range from 8% to about 15% in the SNAP program. If a person is supportive of others being able to get help when needed, then why would that self-same individual advocate for proposals which do precisely the opposite?
Medicaid? CHIP? Nevada, which did expand Medicaid coverage after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, isn’t exactly overly generous with the income eligibility requirements. A family of four trying to pay for housing, food, clothing, transportation, and utilities out of $2,643 per month is going to be hard pressed, and pressed even more harshly if there are medical bills to pay. Non-surgical treatment for a broken leg runs about $2,500. [CH] Thus, Junior’s one accident on the soccer field would almost wipe out the family income for the month. So, why, if Representative Hardy is so concerned for those who evidently need his defense, does he side with those who would cut funding for programs which assist the defenseless?
Let’s go back to Representative Hardy’s last barrage, the part wherein he’s the “victim of cruel Democrats who are using the disabled as human shields to advance their agenda” —
Jon Stewart discussed this “conservative victimization” phenomena back in July 2011 – in a bit which deserves a click and watch. Now that we’ve had our moment of sheer delight…
Note to Representative Hardy: The liberal agenda is supposed to advance the cause of disabled people – people who, with a little help, can be just as productive as their counterparts in the office. The liberal agenda is intended to champion assistance for families on the financial brink who need help to meet medical expenses for themselves and their children. The liberal agenda is to try every way possible to allow a family to feed its children, house its veterans, and care for its elderly. The liberal agenda supports Public Schools, Public Libraries, Public Parks, Public Health, Public Roads and Bridges, and Public broadband access. A liberal believes that the rising tide is supposed to do more than just float yachts.