Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "What happened to Minnesota nice? Michele Bachmann blasted her fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty after he questioned her experience. The two are competing for the Republican nomination for president. ""These are serious times that require serious solutions -- not more of the same. Being right on the issues is critical -- it is what the American people demand. Executive experience is not an asset if it simply means bigger and more intrusive government,"" Bachmann said in a prepared statement on July 24, 2011. ""Governor Pawlenty said in 2006, 'The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive.' That's the same philosophy that, under President Obama, has brought us record deficits, massive unemployment and an unconstitutional health care plan."" We wanted to see if Bachmann was correct about what Pawlenty said about small government, as it seems like a sentiment unlikely to be popular in a Republican primary. We contacted both campaigns for comment but didn't hear back from either one. We were able to easily find the comment; it originated with an August 2006 report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (We found it in the Nexis newspaper database.) ""Pawlenty sees his role as reformer,"" says the headline. ""The GOP governor has targeted what he calls excessive corporate power. Critics call his election-year 'populism' cosmetic."" The story says that starting in 2006, Pawlenty ""repeatedly made himself a nuisance to major industries that frequently back Republicans,"" particularly calling on Congress to put new regulations on prescription drug companies and auto makers. The story said he called for a two-year ban on advertising prescription drugs, urged regulators to speed the release of generic insulin products and proposed new regulations to support the use of ethanol. ""Those kinds of proposals for government intervention in the free market on the surface might seem unusual coming from a conservative GOP politician. But they are illustrations of the way that Pawlenty, a fiscal and social conservative, also styles himself a kind of latter-day trust buster, a reformer who is unafraid to challenge big business and wield government power to correct imbalances in the marketplace,"" the story said. And here's the key section:  ""The era of small government is over,"" Pawlenty said in an interview with the Star Tribune. ""I'm a market person, but there are certain circumstances where you've got to have government put up the guardrails or bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful ... Government has to be more proactive, more aggressive."" ...  Pawlenty insists his own populist streak is no election-year attempt to steer toward the middle. Peel back the conservative, he said, and you find the boy who grew up near South St. Paul's stockyards and learned what happened when power became too concentrated. When companies gain too much power, he said, they can suppress wages. Drug companies can command high prices for brand-name products long after they could have gone generic. Oil companies can use their muscle to keep out renewable fuels. HMOs can shift costs from their members to the public at large. While he may not fit the DFL [Democratic-Farm-Labor Party] definition of a populist, Pawlenty said, ""it's a matter of where you draw the line. ... I know that concentrated power unchecked leads to bad things,"" he said. We're not sure what Pawlenty's own reaction to the story was, but his press secretary didn't like it. The next day, the Star Tribune ran a ""clarification,"" that said the story ""quoted Gov. Tim Pawlenty saying 'The era of small government is over,' a comment he made in reference to a point made in a 2004 column by New York Times columnist David Brooks. Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said Monday that Pawlenty's record shows he is not a supporter of 'big government' and that he was 'simply talking about the need for government to be more effective and active.'"" The Star Tribune story doesn't mention David Brooks, but we went searching for the relevant story, and it seems likely it was a story Brooks wrote for the New York Times Magazine that took the measure of the conservative movement in 2004, headlined ""How to re-invent the G.O.P."" In the story, Brooks noted that historical forces like Islamic extremism and the end of socialism were changing the nature of conservatism, pushing it away from a minimalist vision for government. The new conservatism ""understands the paradox that if you don't have a positive vision of government, you won't be able to limit the growth of government. If you can't offer people a vision of what government should do, you won't be able to persuade them about the things it shouldn't do. If the Republican Party is going to evolve into a principled majority party, members of this group are going to have to build a governing philosophy based on this insight,"" Brooks wrote. Brooks said George W. Bush typified this new approach. ""By the time he began his campaign for president in 1999, Bush understood that the simple government-is-the-problem philosophy of the older Republicans was obsolete. During that campaign, Bush criticized what he called the 'destructive mind-set: the idea that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved. An approach with no higher goal, no nobler purpose, than ""Leave us alone.''' Instead, Bush argued, 'government must be carefully limited but strong and active.'"" Pawlenty maintains that he was incorrectly quoted in the Star Tribune story. In May 2011, he went on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and Limbaugh asked him if he had indeed said, ""The era of small government is over."" ""The other side has pushed that falsely for a number of years,"" Pawleny said, according to the show's transcript. ""What happened is in the Minnesota Star Tribune -- not exactly a conservative publication -- I made reference to an article that David Brooks wrote which was entitled, 'The Era of Small Government is Over.' I didn't say those words myself; I was referencing his article. ""The very next day, the Star Tribune, after a big battle, printed a clarification or a correction in their correction page,"" he continued. ""Of course, the main article was on page one and the correction was buried in some footnote in page three, but that incorrect quote has haunted me -- and I'm glad I had a chance in this big national forum on your great show to clarify, because if you go to the next day's newspaper you'll see the clarification in the Star Tribune."" We should note that the headline of the Brooks' article we found was not ""The Era of Small Government is Over,"" but we won't quibble about that. Pawlenty could have seen the article or another one like it somewhere with a modified headline, and the phrase certainly captures the article's sentiment. We also contacted the Star Tribune to see if it still stood by the story. The story's author, Patricia Lopez, is now the newspaper's political editor. Here's what she said: ""The governor was quoted correctly, which is why we printed only a clarification. He was quoting a David Brooks column, but as you can see, it was in support of other statements he made about the role of government. He never asked to have any other statement in the article corrected."" But even if Pawlenty was quoting Brooks when he said the phrase ""the era of small government is over"" during the interview, he seemed to be doing so approvingly. The rest of the article portrays Pawlenty as someone who was willing to use government to intervene in the markets and gives examples to support that. Here's a little more from the story. ""Oil companies have played a role in suppressing the development of alternative fuels,"" Pawlenty said, with heavy-handed contracts that prevent gasoline stations from providing pumps for renewable fuels such as ethanol. With the nation's economic security at stake, ""that is disproportionate power,"" he said. ""Government has to step in."" Similarly, when he testified before Congress for reimportation of drugs from Canada, where prices are government-regulated, Pawlenty said he got a taste of the pharmaceutical industry's might. ""I've seen it firsthand,"" he said. ""They've got a power that would frighten most citizens."" Pawlenty has changed positions on energy policy; he once supported a cap and trade system but no longer does. We looked for any recent statements he's made about reimporting drugs from Canada, but couldn't find any. We also asked two political watchers in Minnesota if the Star Tribune story was generally reflective of Pawlenty's political views in 2006. They said it was. ""In terms of his views on government, I think he can best be described as actively wanting to use the government to achieve certain ends, only with less taxes,"" said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University who studies Minnesota politics. Schultz said Pawlenty's rhetoric became more conservative starting around 2008, when his name was mentioned as a potential running mate for John McCain. ""In fairness, Pawlenty did restrain spending by the Democratic Legislature. But he was more moderate on several other issues than he now appears, and the (Star Tribune story) is an example of that,"" said Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College. So where does this leave us? Back in 2006, Pawlenty was portraying himself as a conservative who was willing to intervene in markets, and he said that government has to ""bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful."" It appears he's been backing off those positions in 2011, but that doesn't change what his views were years ago. If he was quoting David Brooks when he said ""the era of small government is over,"" he seemed to be doing so approvingly, though a spokesman said he did not mean to imply that he supported ""big government.""." Claim: "Michele Bachmann Says Tim Pawlenty said in 2006, ""The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive."

Answer: "Did Tim Pawlenty say, ""The era of small government is over""?"


Question: Paragraph: In almost all the 12 countries polled, three-quarters or more of those responding to questions posed by the Swiss Medical Lawyers Association (SMLA) said people should be able to decide when and how they die. Two-thirds to three-quarters of them said they could imagine opting for assisted suicide themselves if they suffered from an incurable illness, serious disability or uncontrollable pain. “In practically all European countries, many signs indicate that the prevailing legal system no longer reflects the will of large parts of the population on this issue,” the SMLA said. The results of its poll “should allow politicians to take democratic principles into account when considering legislation on these issues,” it added in its introduction to the study. Assisted suicide is now allowed only in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland. The German government has proposed legalizing it as long as no profit is involved while France is debating whether to allow it. In both Germany and France, the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches oppose legalizing euthanasia and argue for better palliative care to ease pain for dying patients. The study was conducted by the Swiss pollster Isopublic in Austria, Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. It did not survey the four European countries that allow assisted suicide, or countries in eastern Europe. Germans were most open to letting people decide when and how they die, with 87 percent supporting the idea, and results slowly descended to Denmark’s 71 percent in 11th place. Greece was the only exception to this strong support, with only 52 percent backing the idea of allowing assisted suicide. Spaniards were the most willing to consider asking for help to die, with 78 percent support, followed closely by Germans (77 percent) and the French (75 percent). In Britain, 71 percent said they might seek assisted suicide while Greece was again the most reluctant with 56 percent saying they might do so. More than three-quarters of those polled in all countries said only doctors or trained practitioners should perform assisted suicides. A majority of all respondents said doctors should not lose their licenses if they help a patient die. Results ranged from 84 percent in Britain to 58 percent in Greece. About 30 percent of those polled thought dying patients might occasionally be pressured by relatives or doctors into accepting assisted suicide if it is legalized. Roughly another 30 percent thought this would almost never happen. In Germany, where the government’s bill is now being debated in parliament, 76 percent said the proposed law was wrong to ban assisted suicide if the doctor is paid for the service. The bill would not punish those helping patients commit suicide, for example by accompanying them to Switzerland where assisted suicide has been legal since 1942. A rise in dying foreigners - particularly from Germany, France and Britain - ending their lives there has prompted calls for tighter laws, but Zurich voters rejected in 2010 a proposed ban on what opponents called “suicide tourism”. In the United States, assisted suicide is allowed in Oregon, Washington and Montana. Massachusetts voters narrowly defeated a proposal to legalize it there this month. Claim: Large Europe majorities for assisted suicide: survey.

Answer: Large majorities of west Europeans favor the legalization of assisted suicide, now allowed only in four countries on the continent, according to a new survey.


Question: Paragraph: As he did following last month’s Las Vegas massacre of 58 people, Trump resisted any discussion of gun control during a news conference in Tokyo, where he was beginning his first presidential trip to Asia. Instead, Trump characterized the shooting as a “mental health problem at the highest level.” Yet White House officials said Trump is unlikely to call for a specific policy response, as he did after last week’s Islamic State group-inspired truck attack, which killed eight people in New York City. Devin Kelley, the Texas gunman, was discharged from the Air Force several years ago for assaulting his spouse and a child, the Air Force said. “This was a very — based on preliminary reports — a very deranged individual. A lot of problems over a long period of time,” Trump said when asked about the shooting as he and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a joint news conference. Trump’s more muted response to gun violence contrasts with his swift call for legislative and military action following the Oct. 31 truck attack in New York City. Within hours of a rental truck ramming through a crowded bicycle path and into a school bus, Trump called for Congress to “immediately” repeal the diversity visa lottery program that suspect Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbekistan citizen, used to enter the country in 2010. Trump also claimed that the U.S. had already stepped up its retaliation against the Islamic State group after the attack. “We are hitting them 10 times harder,” he said Friday. After the Las Vegas shooting, Trump and aides said it was inappropriate to consider a policy response while people were still grieving. Despite days later suggesting openness to outlawing the bump stock device that allowed Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock to fire at near-automatic rates, the Trump administration has shown no signs of urgency. “He has asked that that process be reviewed, and we’re waiting on some of the details of that to take place,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Oct. 27 when asked about bump stocks. “But a decision hasn’t been finalized on that. ” Trump, who supported gun control before reversing his position to enter the Republican presidential primary, courted the National Rifle Association’s endorsement in 2016, and earlier this year became the first president in three decades to speak at the gun group’s annual convention. In February, Trump signed legislation reversing an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for Americans with mental illnesses to buy a gun. Under the Obama rule, the Social Security Administration would have been required to send in the names of beneficiaries with mental impairments who needed a third party to manage their financial affairs. The rule would have affected an estimated 75,000 beneficiaries who would have been added to the national background check database. The attack happened in South Texas on Sunday morning when a man dressed in black tactical-style gear and armed with an assault rifle opened fire inside a Baptist church in a small community, killing 26 people and wounding 20 others in the deadliest mass shooting in state history. As Kelley left the scene, authorities said, he was confronted by an armed resident. Kelley later was found dead in his vehicle. Trump said, “Fortunately somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction, otherwise it (wouldn’t) have been as bad as it was. It would have been much worse.” Investigators believe Kelley shot himself. ___ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Catherine Lucey and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report. Claim: Trump: Texas mass shooting is about mental health, not guns.

Answer:
Responding to a U.S. mass shooting for the second time in six weeks, President Donald Trump said Monday that it wasn’t “a guns situation” that was behind the slayings of more than two dozen worshippers at a Texas church a day earlier.