There are a lot of things that are being focused on with this statement but one hit me really hard. I couldn't see any other way to interpret it than - "let them die".
Here's the piece:
" .....who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing"
That just speaks miles and it's not an afterthought, it's very clear in message and meaning. It can't be spun because it is too clear.
If you say that people feel entitled to food in this context, by all logical constructs you feel that they ARE NOT entitled to food. If a person does not get food, he or she dies. Not figuratively, literally.
If you believe that people are not entitled, as humans to food then you believe the world should be a savage place where people have to gain their food without help. People who have no relatives and are not capable of taking care of themselves should die.
I think this is something to hammer home - it's not a mis-statement, it's everything it says it is. It's a comment which only someone who is so uncaring that they can't see the simple fact of the logical opposite would ever make and by saying it, they said it.
Anyhow, not sure how to make that one the message but it's a real one.