OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 2/4/2022

"Capehart and Abernathy on the GOP censuring its members, Fed nominees, rising crime rates" PBS NewsHour 2/4/2022

Correction:  During this segment, we referred to Sarah Bloom Raskin as an economist.  She is an attorney who has long worked on economic policy.  She previously served as a deputy secretary of the Treasury, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a former financial regulator.

SUMMARY:  Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, both columnists for The Washington Post, join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Pence's pushback against Trump, Republican Party’s censuring of two members of Congress, President Biden's nominees to the Federal Reserve Board, and rising crime rates.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And we now turn to the analysis of Capehart and Abernathy.  That is Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, both columnists for The Washington Post.  David Brooks is away.

It's very good to see both of you on this Friday.

Jonathan, I want to start with some news that former Vice President Pence made today.  He made a speech.  A lot of people were watching to see what he would say.  And he — what caught our attention is, he said President Trump is wrong to say that he could have overturned the results of the 2020 election.  He said it's time to turn — turn to the future.

What does this say about the state of the Republican Party, when you also have, what, the Republican National Committee today censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only Republicans working on the January 6 investigative committee?

Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post:  Well, Judy, to me, it says that the Republican Party is still undergoing a huge identity crisis.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has been saying what he said today in various forms over the last year with less heat than he did today.  But saying flat out that Donald Trump is wrong, and that he had — and that Vice President — then-Vice President Pence had no ability, no power whatsoever to overturn the will of the American people is the clearest break we have seen between the two.

And it says to me that the former vice president has decided:  Whether I run for president or not, I can't win over Donald Trump.  I can't win over his people.  And so right now the focus is stay in the party and do everything I can to shore up that side of the party.

And it's that side of the party, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, both Republican members of Congress, who today were censured by the national party, but that is the fight.  It's the Pences, the Cheneys, the Kinzingers, and I'm sure a whole lot of other unnamed folks vs. Donald Trump and all of those people within the Republican Party who are taking it down a very dangerous road, not just for the party, but for the country.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, an identity crisis, as Jonathan said?

Gary Abernathy, The Washington Post:  I agree with most of what Jonathan said.  I think that that's right.

There's been a lot of talk lately about, what does the Republican Party stand for?  And I wrote a piece last week saying it doesn't really need to figure that out this year, except that it needs to spend 2022 divorcing itself from Donald Trump slowly, but surely.

I think Pence — I have always admired Pence for saying what he's always said.  And he said it again very strongly today.  I think the party's wrong to try to discipline Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.  I just think that's a mistake.

So I think that the party is slowly, but surely trying to — there are more and more people.  I think — I disagree with Jonathan on one thing.  I think Pence does have a chance to peel away some folks.  I mean, people have to give Mike Pence a lot of credit for the role he played in helping elect Donald Trump, in the successes that Trump had as president.

But, yes, there's no doubt the Republican Party is trying to figure out what it is and what it's going to be going forward.  And I think, as time goes by, it will come to the conclusion, painfully for a lot of people, that it can be the party of Trumpism, but not with Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  But just quickly to both of you, so this — Jonathan, this doesn't put an end to questions about what the Republican Party is going to do with Donald Trump?

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh, no.

And the fact that there are still arguments over — within the party over whether — over what to call the January 6 insurrection just goes to show, just in high relief, what this identity crisis is.

You have the Kinzingers, the Cheneys — and the Cheneys in particular who are making it clear that what happened on January 6 was an affront to the Constitution and an affront to American democracy, and that a functioning national party should have no — shouldn't give it any quarter, should not give it any — anyone who subscribes to that any comfort.

And the fact that we are even having this conversation just goes to show how far gone the Republican Party is.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, turning to something else we were watching this past week, a few weeks ago, President Biden nominated three economists to join the Federal Reserve Board, and this at the same time there's so much attention to who he may appoint to the Supreme Court to succeed Stephen — Justice Stephen Breyer.

Of course, the President has said it will be a Black woman.  He did appoint three economists.  We're going to remind you who they are.  Sarah Bloom Raskin is one.  Lisa Cook is another, Philip Jefferson.  Again, they're all economists with a string of credentials to their names.

But Republicans in the Senate, Gary, have gone after all three of them, questioned their qualifications, and especially gone after Lisa Cook and questioned whether she has the credentials to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

What does it say about the ability of a President to argue, I want diversity on the Federal Reserve?

Gary Abernathy:  Well, I think it's OK to go question people.

These are high-profile positions.  And it's fine to ask tough questions.  I don't think that necessarily implies or insinuates anything, other than differences, political, ideological differences, that Republicans tend to have with whoever President Biden is going to nominate.

But, Judy, I'd like to see us get back to the place where partisanship is OK when it comes to when you win elections.  When you win elections, you also win the right to do certain things.  You win the right to make appointments to boards and to the courts of people who you want.

And I'd like to see us get back to the day where the opposition party respects that and says, even though that's not who we would appoint, that's not who I would like to see there, I respect the fact that you have won the right to make the appointment of whoever you want.

And I'd like to see us get back to where we don't have to worry, gee, is this a 50/50 Senate when it comes to approving appointments, because you respect the process, you respect the fact that Joe Biden won this election, so he can make the appointments that he wants.

And I'd like to see — when a Republican is President again someday, I'd like to see Democrats say, we know you're going to appoint conservatives to these boards and to the courts, but you know what, you won, we're going to respect that and we're going to vote for that person.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Jonathan, that's not where we are.  We are watching just a lot of criticism of these three nominees and, as we said, especially Lisa Cook.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Why is it, Judy, that whenever a person of color is nominated to one of these prominent positions, the immediate first question is, are they qualified, or their qualifications are questioned, when that person of color, in particularly Lisa Cook, are overwhelmingly qualified?

It is galling.  And it is ridiculous.  And these questions to start to morph from, are they qualified to serve in these positions to questioning their humanity.

I mean, in Lisa Cook, we're talking about somebody with a BA from Spelman, a BA from Oxford, a Ph. D from the University of California at Berkeley, the Obama White House Council of Economic Advisers.  She's on the Federal Reserve board in Chicago.

I mean, this is someone who is eminently qualified.  And yet, when we're talking about someone's qualifications, it's all focused on her.  And I don't think — it is not coincidental that she is Black.  And it's not coincidental that she's also a Black woman who's being put through this.

And I just have to say, as an American, and certainly as an African American, it pains me to see someone who worked so hard, who's given so much to the people and the institutions she's worked with, but also to her country, to then have to sit before members of the Senate who question who she is, what she's done, and what value she — she brings.

How these folks, anyone who sits before these confirmation hearings, is able to sit through that and not just lose it to defend themselves and defend where they come from and who they are is a testament to why they should be confirmed to the positions that they have been nominated to.

Judy Woodruff:  The last thing I want to turn both of you to, and that is a subject in the news this past week, rising violent crime in the country, especially homicide.

In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams had President Biden come and meet with him and talk to him about what's going on and what to do about it.

Here is just an excerpt of what President Biden had to say when he was in New York City this week.

President Joe Biden:  Mayor Adams, you and I agree.  The answer is not to abandon our streets.  That's not the answer.

The answer is to come together, police and communities building trust and making us all safer.  The answer is not to defund the police.  It is to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protectors, and community needs you.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see, Gary, the — how this discussion has evolved?

Because, after the death of George Floyd, a lot of conversation about the need for police reform.  Of course, Mayor Adams is coming at it from a different — with a different approach.  Where are we headed on this — on these issues — on this issue?

Gary Abernathy:  

But I also thought it was kind of sad that he had to say it.  I think it's unfortunate when a President — and presidents may rule here when it comes to this, is setting the tone.  And you need to say, you know what?  We support our police departments.  When someone calls 911, we want someone to come.

And the fact that there were members of his party calling a couple of years ago for defunding the police, both in Congress and at the city level, and he has to come out and say — and, to his credit — I mean, to be fair, I have never heard President — President Biden's always said, we don't need to defund the police.

But it's a shame he's in the position he has to do that.  He also talked a lot about gun control.  I don't think guns are the problem.  People using the guns are the problem.  A gun has never gotten up and walked out and killed anyone.

So, gun violence, it's the people who would use guns for violence, Judy.  And we need to look at the root cause of that.  We know we have a drug problem.  I was looking at an article just a little while ago about record number of fentanyl coming across our border.  We need to shut that down.  That leads to gun violence.

So I'm glad President Biden said what he said yesterday.  Again, I think it's unfortunate that he has to be a guy saying, we shouldn't defund the police, because that should be obvious.  Of course, we shouldn't defund police.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, just — I know it's a big subject.  Just 30 seconds left to talk about how this debate has shifted.

Jonathan Capehart:  It shifted in that, one, on defunding the police, no one serious out there wants to defund the police.

I think what President Biden and certainly Mayor Eric Adams are trying to do, they are trying to walk this line of support supporting the police, but also supporting communities who have serious concerns about how the police do their jobs in terms of protecting the community.

I think the two of them want to make the police and the community partners.  And in a lot of places around the country, they are.

But, as we have seen, especially tonight in Minneapolis, with William Brangham's report, there are serious issues.

Judy Woodruff:  It's such a big subject.  And I know we're going to be coming back to it.

Thank you both, Jonathan Capehart, Gary Abernathy.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Have a good weekend.

Gary Abernathy:  You too.

COMMENT:  Note that 'defunding police' has never been about actually defunding.  It is about reallocating police funds to help with the other issues police departments have to deal with, like (example) training on handling psychiatric people.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 8/9/2019

"David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart on Trump’s mass shooting response" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week’s political news, including whether there will be real momentum in Congress to enact stronger gun legislation, how President Trump conducted himself visiting shooting victims in El Paso and Dayton and what white supremacy means for our American national identity.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  We're now nearly a week on from the two tragedies in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.  But the grave questions that have been raised in the aftermath remain, and likely will remain for some time.

How, if at all, will American politics and American society respond?

That brings us to Brooks and Capehart.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart.  Mark Shields is away this week.

Welcome to you both.  Thanks for being here.

Let's jump into the big topic for this week.  Obviously, gun violence was a big topic of conversation.

I want to go right to a poll.  We heard President Trump mention earlier today that Leader McConnell is totally on board with background checks.  That would bring him in line with the rest of the country.  This is broken down by party support for universal background checks.

The floor there, David Brooks, is 84 percent for Republicans.

Do you see this as the moment that this legislation passes?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, of course, logically, you want to say yes, but we have been here so many times since Newtown and all — Parkland and all the shootings, that we haven't quite got there.

And so how can something with that kind of support even among Republicans not pass?

First, the NRA has a zero compromise policy, that we won't accept any compromise at all.  We're just holding the line.

And so far, for 20 or 30 years, that has sort of been working for them.  Second, it's low salient issue.  People care about guns on the week after something like this happens.  And then you ask them, rank the issues you care about, guns start dropping down.

And then the third, it's turned into a culture war, where, for a lot of people, it's not about guns at all.  It's about my culture vs. your culture.  And if you want to control my guns, which are part of my gun clubs, part of my community, you're just a bunch of coastal elites coming after me.

And so I hope this is a week when that changes, but we have a right to be a little skeptical.

And the one opportunity — and this is a perverse way to put it — is that we might not have — we might have the same gun debate over and over again, but what's become new this week is, it's a terrorism issue as well, in that the people, especially in El Paso, but in a lot of these other shootings, they are killing on behalf of an ideology that is a little like the ISIS ideology in some ways.

And we could — if we had a discussion, what do we do to combat domestic terrorism, that, we might be able to have a different kind of conversation and pass some of the things we couldn't pass any other way.

Amna Nawaz:  The threat might be different there, you think.

David Brooks:  You might rearrange the political alliances, because the gun issue, people are pretty baked in.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, what do you think?

I mean, we do have this conversation again and again.  It's usually right after one of these mass public events.  You remember, back in 2012, after kindergartners were murdered…

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Yes.

Amna Nawaz:  … we thought, OK, this is the moment.  And then it wasn't.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

If the slaughter of 20 children in their elementary school wasn't enough to move the Senate, to move the U.S. Congress to pass even just background checks — it failed by six votes — then nothing will move them.

To David's point about, a week we will be talking about, we will move on, but I think the momentum in this case will dissipate greatly because the President just left for vacation.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is already on vacation.  He's already said the Senate's not coming back.

And so by the time they come back in September, God forbid we're not talking about another mass shooting, but it might not be until another mass shooting that you get the kind of energy and momentum that's needed to push such a heavy rock up the hill.

Amna Nawaz:  Do you think if they face — members of Congress are in their home districts.  If they're getting questions about it, that could help add to some momentum?

Jonathan Capehart:  I mean, look, again, going back to Newtown, the national outrage over what happened wasn't enough to blunt the power of the NRA.

So I don't know how much a town hall is going to — or successive town halls will be to change the momentum.

David Brooks:  The cultural issue cannot be underestimated.

I have always loved Mayor Bloomberg, but it wasn't good for the gun issue that the guy spending all the money around the country and becoming a spokesperson for the movement was the mayor of New York City.

This has to be led by a group of red state people who are rock-ribbed Republicans who say, I'm very Republican, I love to shoot, guns are part of my culture, but we got to change.

And until you can get red state leaders doing that, it's going to be a tougher issue.

Amna Nawaz:  Let me ask you about something else.

The President did, obviously, make a visit to those affected communities.  And his team put out what's basically a highly produced edited video of his visit on the ground in El Paso.  You're watching a clip of it right there.

There was a contrast there between some of the reports we heard on the ground from journalists and then another video.  It was cell phone video that emerged after the visit.  It showed the President on the ground in El Paso talking about his crowd size at a rally back in February and comparing it to Beto O'Rourke's.

Take a quick listen to what he said.

Donald Trump:  That was some crowd.

Woman:  Thank you.

Donald Trump:  And we had twice the number outside.  And then you had this crazy Beto.  Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot.  They said his crowd was wonderful.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, there is kind of a tale of two narratives there.  In the moment, you don't really know which one to pay attention to.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, the narrative here is consistent.

President Trump is at the center of that narrative, whether it's that highly produced campaign-style-like video of his visits to El Paso Dayton, or it's that cell phone video where he's talking about one of the things that is part of his greatest hits, crowd size.

He has talked about crowd size since the day of his inauguration.  And, for him, that is a marker of popularity.

But, in that moment, what I would expect the people of El Paso and Dayton, the people in Ohio, the American people who are grieving — and also Texas — people who are grieving, what they want to see from a President is comfort.  They want to see someone consoling them.

I was in New York on 9/11.  And President George W.  Bush was President of the United States, and I had lots of disagreements with the policies of President George W. Bush.  But when he stood on that rubble at ground zero and talked to those workers, and talked to the city, and talked to the nation, that's exactly what we needed to hear then.

When President Obama went to Charleston and impromptu sang "Amazing Grace" at the eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, a state senator who was murdered with eight other people in Mother Emanuel Church, in that moment, he channeled the grief of a church, of a city, of a community, and of a nation.

We didn't get that with President Trump.

Amna Nawaz:  David, how do you look at this, really?  He's such a divisive figure anyway.  There is the standard of the consoler in chief.  He hasn't done it yet.  It's not who he is.  Right?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, there's a photo, a still from that visit where he's with the orphan baby and two family members, with his wife.  And Melania is holding the child.  And he's got this grin and the thumb up.

And when I looked at that photo, I thought, the Democrats are having a debate: Is he a racist?  Is he a white supremacist?

And I look at that photo, I think, well, he's a sociopath.  He's incapable of experiencing or showing empathy.

And, politically, it's helpful for him to target that lack of empathy and fellow feeling toward people of color.  But how much have we seen him show empathy for anybody?

And so I look at that as someone who is unloved and made himself unlovable and whose subject is himself, is his own competitive greatness.  And so he doesn't do the consoler in chief just because he doesn't do that emotional range.

And that's a burden and a cost for any of us.

Amna Nawaz:  You mentioned the white supremacy line there.  We have obviously been talking about that a lot in 2019 now.

And Lisa Desjardins was reporting earlier too on the ground in Iowa there.  Candidates are being asked about that:  Do you think this President is a white supremacist?

Is that sort of a litmus test now for candidates moving forward?

David Brooks:  It's an easy emotional inflation, it seems to me.

I thought Biden's answer and Kamala Harris' was pretty good, which is, I don't know, but he's certainly enabling them.  And he's certainly speaking the language.  He uses the language of invasion when talking about immigration.

Now, I read a lot of the manifestos this week and those who have actually killed in Christchurch, New Zealand, and El Paso.  They start with invasion.  They go many more steps.  They believe that racial mixing really is a cancer.  And they have this deep separatism.

I don't know if Trump has that.  But he has certainly set an atmosphere where it's easier to talk about human beings as an invasion.

Amna Nawaz:  What do you make of all this right now, Jonathan?  It's a big topic.  This is nothing new in America.  And yet it's new in terms of how prevalent it is.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, because — and it pains me to say this, but we're talking about it because the President of the United States is a racist with a white supremacist policy agenda.

He began his political career questioning the legitimacy of the first African-American President.  He started his campaign within the first two minutes saying that Mexicans were — quote — "rapists."

He called for a complete and total ban on Muslims entering the United States after the San Bernardino attack during the campaign in December 2016.  He's used words on the campaign trail from the midterm elections and continued, invasion, caravans, infestation, animals, to what David was talking about.

In policy and in rhetoric, he is feeding into this environment, this atmosphere, where people such as the shooter in El Paso who has — we have seen the affidavit.  He's confessed in doing what he's done, and confessed to targeting — quote — "Mexicans."

That — these things don't happen in a vacuum.  Did the President order this person to do this?  No.  But that person heard in that rhetoric — and we have seen it from New Zealand, around the world, but particularly here, where we are dealing with a domestic terrorism problem, where the primary people committing these terrorist acts are white supremacists.

We're dealing with a situation here where the President of the United States is feeding into it with the rhetoric that's coming out of his mouth, whether it's from a podium at the White House or from a podium at a campaign rally somewhere in the country.

David Brooks:  Yes.

I hear you talking, and I think I basically agree with it.  Then I — my next question is, well, how do we then do democracy for the next 16 months?  Like, there is a presumption that we're all Americans together.  There's a presumption of goodwill, that we can have a conversation.

And maybe Donald Trump — but how do we address ourselves to Donald Trump supporters, many of whom are very realistic and are supporters of him for good reasons having to do with their own lives and the dissolution of their own communities.

It's going to be hard to have a conversation once the President has been declared sort of really beneath contempt.  And I'm not saying I disagree with you.  I'm just saying this is a problem we have to deal with as we try to have a national conversation over this election.

TRUMP LIE - Britain's Universal Health Care

"Trump on Britain’s Universal Health Care" by Robert Farley, FactCheck.org 2/8/2018

President Donald Trump tweeted that while Democrats are pushing for universal health care, “thousands of people are marching in the UK because their U[niversal] system is going broke and not working."  But the London demonstrators marched in support of the system and urged the government to better fund it.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is a single-payer system: The government pays for health care, which is free at the point of service (with the exception of some prescription, eye care or dental costs), and funded through taxes.

Trump’s tweet came after a “Fox & Friends” interview with Nigel Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and a Trump supporter, who said rampant immigration is putting a strain on Britain’s National Health Service.  As a result, he said, “We just haven’t got enough hospitals.  We haven’t got enough doctors.  We haven’t got enough facilities.”

Without “fundamental reforms,” Farage said, the NHS is at a “breaking point.”

And he issued this warning for Americans:  “The big, big point is this: when the state gives benefits to people, any attempt in the future to reform it or take those benefits back becomes politically impossible.  … If you [Americans] were to introduce universal health care, paid for essentially out of taxes, you would never, ever be able to remove that.”

Soon after, Trump tweeted this:

Indeed, some Democrats are pushing for universal health care.  In September, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2017, which would broaden Medicare into a universal health insurance program.  It was cosponsored by 16 Democratic senators.  And a majority of House Democrats signed on as co-sponsors of the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers earlier last year.

But Trump’s tweet suggests those “marching in the UK” were opposed to the universal health care system there.  That’s not accurate.

The BBC reported that thousands demonstrated in London on Feb. 3, “calling for more government support for the NHS.”

The groups behind the rally, The People’s Assembly and Health Campaigns Together, put out a joint statement responding to Trump’s tweet.  They said the demonstrators wanted “to show their love for the principles of universal and comprehensive care free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation."  They were protesting, they said, against British government policies they view as trying to “move us more to an American-style system which is widely acknowledged to be one of the most expensive, inefficient and unjust healthcare systems in the world.”

Here’s the entire response:

The People’s Assembly and Health Campaigns Together, Feb.  5:

Dear Donald Trump

The NHS has existed since 1948 in the UK after the devastation of the second world war.  The British population demanded the right to have access to healthcare which they deserve as human beings which is absolutely affordable when the right political decisions are made.

It has been a shining example to the world of what can be achieved when we put the needs of the collective good over the interests of a few wealthy individuals.  Unfortunately, our current government have been persuaded to increasingly adopt policies which represent those of your Government, they have decided to move us more to an American-style system which is widely acknowledged to be one of the most expensive, inefficient and unjust healthcare systems in the world.

This is why our NHS is currently struggling and why leading Professors including Professor Stephen Hawking are bravely battling politicians who wish to turn it into a system like yours.

This is what our demonstration was about on Saturday 3rd Feb and tens of thousands of British people want to show their love for the principles of universal and comprehensive care free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation.  We don’t agree with your divisive and incorrect rhetoric.  No thanks.

A New York Times story notes that “budgetary austerity” in the U.K. has limited the growth of health spending to below the historical norm.  As a result, “Patients often wait months, even for essential procedures.  Waiting rooms are often crowded,” the Times wrote.  That has soured some on the system, though public satisfaction with the NHS remains high.

Those protesting in Britain recently weren’t advocating scrapping the system; they were advocating higher government funding.  According to the Times, the protesters in Britain chanted, “Keep your hands off our N.H.S."  Images of the protest from the BBC and published by The Guardian show demonstrators carrying signs that read, “More Staff, More Beds, More Funds” and “Save Our NHS.”

In July 2017, the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, issued a report comparing the health care system performance of 11 high-income countries, using indicators for care process, access, administrative efficiency, equity and health care outcomes.  The U.K. was tops overall in the performance rankings.  The U.S ranked last.

Commonwealth Fund, July 2017:  In general, the U.K. achieves superior performance compared to other countries in all areas [care process, access, administrative efficiency and equity] except Health Care Outcomes, where it ranks 10th despite experiencing the fastest reduction in deaths amenable to health care in the past decade.  [The U.S. ranked 11th, last, on health care outcomes].

Eric Schneider, senior vice president for policy and research at the Commonwealth Fund and the study’s lead author, said he could not comment on the specifics of Trump’s claims.  But he said the Commonwealth Fund report “shows that overall the health systems of the United Kingdom and several other high income countries achieve higher performance than the U.S.”

“Like several other high-income countries, the U.K. spends a lower percentage of its GDP on health care than the U.S.,” Schneider told us via email.  “All health systems, even those that are well designed and organized, may find it difficult to perform at a high level if they are insufficiently funded.”

In response to Trump’s tweet, Britain’s health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said on Twitter that while he disagreed with some of the claims made by those who participated in the march, “not ONE of them wants to live in a system where 28m people have no cover.”

Hunt added that while “NHS may have challenges” he was “proud to be from the country that invented universal coverage – where all get care no matter the size of their bank balance.”

According to the BBC News, Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, also responded to Trump’s tweet, saying, “Unfortunately, respectfully, we suggest that tweet got the wrong end of the stick.”

“And, in fact, people in this country don’t want to ditch our NHS,” Stevens said, “not withstanding what we’ve said today, they want to keep it and strengthen it.”

INSIDE PUTIN'S RUSSIA - The Putin Definition

aka "Spin Politics of an Autocratic" a model for Trump

"Pride, patriotism and how Putin helped redefine what it means to be a 'true Russian'" PBS NewsHour 7/10/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The new Russian identity is a combination of religion, old Russian traditions and rediscovered patriotism.  It helps explain how today's Russians think, how President Putin acts and why he remains popular.  As part of our week-long series Inside Putin's Russia, special correspondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin report in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

"Inside Russia's propaganda machine" PBS NewsHour 7/11/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For years, the Kremlin and the media it controls have waged a multifaceted information (and disinformation) campaign inside Russia and pointed at its perceived adversaries, including the U.S.  As part of our week-long series Inside Putin's Russia, special correspondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin report on the information wars, in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

"Why are so many from this Russian republic fighting for ISIS?" PBS NewsHour 7/12/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the republic of Dagestan, a brutal separatist insurgency has long fought against the Russian state.  Now, as many as 5,000 Dagestanis have left to fight for the Islamic State.  Why have so many answered the call?  As part of our week-long series Inside Putin's Russia, special correspondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin report, in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

"The deadly risk of standing up to Putin" PBS NewsHour 7/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What can happen to you if you oppose the Kremlin?  There is a high mortality rate among prominent critics of the Russian government, which some say is emblematic of how President Vladimir Putin runs the country.  As part of our week-long series Inside Putin's Russia, special correspondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin report in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

"What Russians think about Trump and the U.S." PBS NewsHour 7/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There may be no more consequential relationship for the U.S. than with Russia.  As part of our week-long series “Inside Putin's Russia,” special correspondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin report in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting on how Russians perceive the U.S. and how the relationship between the two world powers has evolved under Trump.