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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Gail Collins loves telling the story of how Mitt Romney drove his family to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car -- and telling it, and telling it, and telling it. The liberal New York Times columnist has mentioned the incident in print 19 times, by our count. She devoted a column to the incident in 2007 when Romney first ran for president. In another column, she suggested John McCain pick Romney for his running mate ""so I can repeatedly revisit the time Mitt drove to Canada with the family dog on the station-wagon roof."" And when Sarah Palin was picked instead, and Collins opined that ""unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car."" Collins regularly includes the incident in jocular news quizzes she writes. (A typical question: Which Republican hopeful ""continued to fail to explain why he drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car?"" Mitt Romney.) She complained that his 2010 campaign book No Apology didn't mention it, calling it ""a critical oversight."" Last year, just in time for the holidays, she suggested someone make ""a tasteful Mitt Romney Christmas Ornament"" depicting the scene of the dog on the roof. And just last week, she noted that the issue wasn't discussed during the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Romney's top rival, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, reportedly shot a coyote that was threatening his daughter's dog, which made the Romney anecdote relevant. ""His puppy-rescue is a stirring picture, especially considering that Perry's chief competitor is the man who drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."" Aside from wondering why Collins is so obsessed with the story, we also wondered: Is it true? We reached Collins to ask her why she liked the story so much, but she said she'd rather let her columns speak for themselves. (See a picture of Seamus here.) The story of Seamus the Irish setter is not an Internet rumor. It first appeared in the august pages of the Boston Globe in 2007, when the paper published a seven-part profile of Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who had just launched a presidential run. The story of Seamus kicked off Day Four, a story about Romney's family life, written by Globe reporters Neil Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert. It begins in 1983 with a 36-year-old Mitt Romney carefully packing up his five sons and luggage into the family station wagon for a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, where his parents had a cottage on Lake Huron. At the time, Romney was a successful young consultant with Bain & Company, but he hadn't yet started buying and selling companies with Bain Capital in the private equity field. ""As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop. ... Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. "" Cruel? It's not presented that way in the story, which noted Romney built a special windshield for the carrier, ""to make the ride more comfortable for the dog."" But Seamus must not have been all that comfortable, because he began to experience, um, gastric distress. From the story:   As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours. As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management. As the story quickly made its way around the Internet, Romney loathers -- and dog lovers -- had a field day. The liberal blog Wonkette said it showed Romney would be a great commander-in-chief for the notorious Iraq prison Abu Ghraib. David Kravitz of the liberal blog Blue Mass Group called it ""nuts"" and ""classic Romney: it solves a problem efficiently, in a business-like manner, and with no regard whatsoever for the suffering that the solution may cause."" Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals told Time's Ana Marie Cox that Romney was giving his children ""a lesson in cruelty"" and that dogs under extreme stress might lose control of their bowels. ""That alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured,"" she said. Cox explored whether Romney's actions might have been illegal under animal cruelty laws. (A moot point, because the statute of limitations has long expired.) As to the accuracy of the story, the Globe learned of the incident from friends of the family and confirmed the details with the Romney family. And the candidate himself didn't dispute the report. In fact, in the days following, he defended it. Seamus loved riding in the carrier, Romney told reporters on the campaign trail in 2007. ""He scrambled up there every time we went on trips,"" Romney said. ""He got (up) all by himself and enjoyed it."" He also said PETA had targeted him because there was a rodeo at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and because he went quail hunting in Georgia. ""And they're not happy that my dog likes fresh air,"" he added. Actually, Seamus had been dead -- of natural, non-station wagon-related causes -- for years when the story appeared. (He had retired to California to live with Romney's sister, who had more space.) We didn't get answers about Seamus from the Romney campaign, but from Neil Swidey, the Boston Globe reporter who unearthed the story. Swidey said he chose the incident to begin his story because he thought it would resonate with readers as an illustration of Romney's approach to solving problems -- trip is interrupted by dog poop, so Romney pulls over, borrows a hose, takes care of the problem, and is back on his way. ""I certainly didn't write it to make it the basis on which you judge a presidential candidate. The fact that some people appear to be doing that is a little bit crazy. But I can understand why it resonates with people,"" Swidey said. ""It's a window into how this guy operates."" Swidey said some people see it as evidence of Romney's heartlessness, while others see him as logical man and a problem solver. He confirmed the impression we got from reading the story, that the incident was amusing family lore, and that none of the Romney family was upset or disturbed by the dog riding on the roof. In fact, some of the Romneys said they thought the dog actually liked riding on the roof. (Finally, lest we be accused of utter frivolousness, we asked Swidey what aspects of Romney's biography might be more relevant to voters considering Romney for president. He pointed us toward the Globe's coverage of Romney's business career in private equity, his time as governor and Romney's relationship with his father George, who ran for president himself back in 1968.) Here, we're ruling on Collins' statement that Romney ""drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."" It's important to note that the dog was not literally strapped to the car, as in tied around its midsection. Rather, Seamus was in a carrier with a protective windscreen that Romney had built. The dog's diarrhea might indicate that something was amiss, but Romney's family didn't seem bothered by it. The anecdote is presented in the Globe as funny family story, not as evidence of Romney's barbaric cruelty." Claim: "Mitt Romney ""drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."

Output: Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Republican House leaders fanned out on the Sunday shows to defend a stop-gap measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security in their ongoing fight against President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. They did not stray from talking points. TV audiences Sunday heard one specific number several times as hosts pressed the GOP lawmakers to justify the chaos over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did,"" House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ Face the Nation. Both Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise repeated the ""22 times"" talking point on NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, respectively. Even Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, one of 52 Republicans who opposed a three-week funding plan, used the figure to defend his House Freedom Caucus’ actions on CNN’s State of the Union. PolitiFact wanted to see where the number comes from and just how accurate it is. What we’re talking about The controversy stems from Obama’s Nov. 20, 2014, announcement that he would delay deportations of unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. More than 4 million people could qualify. An applicant could qualify for a work permit and avoid being deported for three years at a time if he or she can pass a background check and pay a fee. The decision is bound for higher court battles after a Texas federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the action, saying it may have violated procedural rules for using executive power. This action came on top of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012, an executive action to protect ""dreamers,"" or people brought here illegally as children and have not committed crimes. That move, too, was viewed by critics as an abuse of power, but supporters said it helped provide a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of residents. After Obama’s post-midterm elections announcement on immigration, Boehner’s office unleashed a Buzzfeed-style blog post detailing ""22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law."" What’s on Boehner’s list Our PolitiFact Texas colleagues dissected Boehner’s list for similar fact-checks of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the legal challenge of Obama’s actions when he was still attorney general. PolitiFact Texas tracked down each of the citations in Boehner’s post, comparing what they said Obama said with transcripts and news stories. In a nutshell, the majority of the examples are of Obama saying he did not have power to do more on immigration without Congress. Others, as we’ll explain in a moment, say something more nuanced or aren’t specific to immigration. We won’t go through every quote that supports Boehner’s point here, but here are a few we culled from a document created by PolitiFact Texas: In September 2012, Obama was asked if he would follow up his recent protective move for students by doing something similar for non-criminal immigrants such as the parents of U.S.-born children. Obama replied that ""as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do… we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally,"" as in parents deported. (No. 13 on Boehner’s list.) At a presidential debate in October 2012, Obama and Mitt Romney were asked: ""What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society?"" Obama said: ""I've done everything that I can on my own."" (No. 14 on Boehner’s list.) In a January 2013 Telemundo interview, Obama was asked why he couldn’t protect mothers living here without authorization from deportation as he had served law-abiding students. ""I’m not a king,"" Obama replied, akin to his response the same month to a similar query from Univision. ""You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And-- you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws-- we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize-- what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law."" (No. 16 on Boehner’s list.) So clearly there are examples of Obama saying he couldn’t do more with executive action, then later doing exactly that. That’s why PolitiFact previously rated Obama’s claim that ""my position hasn’t changed"" as False. What should not be counted But also included on Boehner’s list of 22 are quotes where Obama was either suggesting his executive powers did not have hard limits or was silent on his executive power on immigration. Here are a few problems with quotes included on Boehner’s list. In two instances during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama criticized ""signing statements"" used by President George W. Bush that interpret laws, but he did not bring up immigration. Immigration was also not part of his reply to a question at a 2010 MTV/BET event when he said, ""I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there,"" in response to a question about ""don’t ask, don’t tell."" (Nos. 1, 2 and 5.) In September 2011, with his deferred-action plan on the horizon, Obama reiterated that he cannot just change laws unilaterally in response to a question about possible administrative relief for students who don’t have legal residency. But he hinted that there might be room within his authority, saying, ""what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources."" (No. 12 on Boehner’s list.) Obama’s July 2013 Univision interview hit similar notes when he was asked if he could grant amnesty to the undocumented population. He called for a legislative solution and said ""probably not,"" adding, ""I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus."" (No. 18 on Boehner’s list.) In August 2014, Obama told reporters he may ""scour our authorities to try to make progress"" without congressional cooperation. Obama said, ""We’re going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are working within the confines of my executive power. But I promise you the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done."" (No. 22 on Boehner’s list.) Asked why Boehner continues to cite 22 examples, spokesman Michael Steel told PolitiFact ""we obviously stand by"" the count. Pressed to explain why, he said, ""Obviously, we're just going to agree to disagree about the ‘22 times’ figure, which we feel is accurate."" The bigger picture Whether the real number is 22, 15 or something less than that is more complicated by the specifics of Boehner’s claim. Boehner's claim is Obama said he couldn’t do ""what he eventually did."" Experts we talked to noted that Obama was not always so specific in the comments Boehner and his team cited. Boehner’s count factors in both instances of Obama talking about how he could not legalize or deport the entire undocumented population as well as more limited executive actions to relieve smaller populations. ""It gives me a headache,"" said Anna O. Law, a CUNY Brooklyn College political science professor, of the post, ""because they’re playing semantics."" Alex Nowrasteh, a Cato Institute immigration analyst, said he did not know what to make of the ""very political"" claim. Ultimately, much of it depends on your specific interpretation of each quote. Our ruling Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times. Clarification: This item was updated on March 2, 2015, to better explain the ruling of a federal judge in Texas." Claim: "On immigration, ""the president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."

Output: "Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Congress may have no greater trade-agreement foe than Sherrod Brown, the Democratic U.S. senator from Ohio. It’s not that he says selling cars, soap and widgets to foreign consumers is bad. It’s just that some foreign trading partners use their cheap labor and weak environmental and safety standards to sell cars, toys and widgets to Americans at prices that our domestic industries cannot match while, according to Brown, adopting policies that make it hard to sell America’s goods abroad. So Brown was not saddened when negotiations for a South Korean trade deal went sour in November. After all, he said in a news release, more than 10 years of free trade deals have  ""brought a $2 billion per day trade deficit and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs -- jobs that should go to Ohio's skilled workers."" PolitiFact and The Plain Dealer expended plenty of bytes and ink on the lost-jobs issue during the election season, so there is no need to wade back into it here. Let’s just say that a persuasive case can be made, although the underlying data on jobs is poor. This country can send a man to the moon but it cannot precisely quantify the number of jobs lost or gained to trade. But what about Brown’s other point -- that more than 10 years of trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement and trade relations with China has resulted in a trade deficit of $2 billion a day? Causation of that kind is in dispute, and some experts and data suggest this country’s reliance on oil plays a big role in the trade deficit, with OPEC countries selling $76.4 billion more to the United States than vice versa so far this year. But imbalances with China ($201 billion and counting so far this year) play a bigger role, government statistics show. We will not argue cause and effect here, nor will we tell you not to enjoy low-price consumer goods. We’re merely examining the numbers. They show that the negative balance of trade went from $70.3 billion in 1993, just before NAFTA, to $378.8 billion in 2000, as the United States accepted permanent normalized trade with China, to a record high of $759.2 billion in 2006, according to Commerce Department records. So what of Brown’s precise number, $2 billion a day? Brown is right -- kind of. Or he’s not right, sort of. This drives us nuts too, but as we dug into the subject, we realized that different groups use different measures to describe the size of the trade deficit. You’d think it would be as easy as comparing the value of goods and services exported from the United States with those imported from other countries. So let’s show you some numbers from the Commerce Department using that exact measure. Trade deficit for 2007: $702 billion. For 2008: $698.8 billion. For 2009: $374.9 billion. The recession’s effects were glaring, but even before then the trend was downward, albeit slightly. For January through September 2010, the most recent measurement available, the trade balance was a negative $379.1 billion. Assuming the monthly trends hold through December, this year’s annual trade deficit should reach $500 billion. Divide that by the days of the year and you’d have a daily trade deficit of $1.37 billion a day. That’s 32 percent lower than Brown’s claim of $2 billion a day. But since flush times will return eventually, imports and exports will presumably resume at robust levels, too. So if Brown was referring to the trade deficits that existed before the recession, his statement would be nearly accurate, because the deficit came to an average of $1.91 billion a day in 2008 and $1.92 billion a day in 2007. But it may not be that simple. Trade balances are affected not only by wages, tariffs and the demands of consumers, but also by events beyond the recession such as currency corrections and the value of the dollar. Considering recent currency corrections, annual trade deficits could stay in the range of $500 billion, said William Cline, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. That would make Brown’s $2 billion-a-day figure somewhat high. ""It’s a bit of an outdated figure,"" Cline said.. Yet there’s another way of viewing the data. Figures from the Commerce Department that we reviewed originated from the U.S. Census Bureau’s economic analysis unit (a bureau within a bureau at Commerce). The figures are the government’s official measure of the trade balance, used by the White House, cited in the news media and accepted broadly by economists. Yet the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC, which polices trade matters in the United States, maintains separate data that is used to review tariffs and trade practices. Depending on how one chooses to sort the data, a higher trade deficit can result. Brown’s office told us that his data came from the ITC. So we, too, turned to the ITC, and its staff helped guide us in using its online database. The ITC cautioned that the official figures come from Commerce, but various trade professionals use ITC data to drill down further for other purposes. We drilled. The result: A much higher trade deficit -- as high as $500.9 billion last year, in the depths of the recession, and $800 billion -- averaging $2.19 billion a day -- for 2008. How can one agency have such different figures from another? It’s easy. The ITC, concerned with tariffs, trade laws and trade policy, measures the value of goods -- cars, factory equipment, steel -- but not services. Services represent only a portion of the trade universe, yet they add a sweet spot to the equation. This country had a $132 billion trade surplus in services last year because it exported more in the way of travel, financial services, information services and so forth, than it brought in. Take away those services -- or just look at the ITC numbers -- and the trade balance becomes more bleak. It’s important to remember that when the White House and news reports mention the trade deficit, they are including services as well as goods and relying on the Commerce numbers. Even the ITC stressed this with us. But Brown aides as well as representatives of Public Citizen, a liberal public interest group, and its Global Trade Watch project, say the ITC data can be more relevant in certain circumstances. A state like Ohio exports relatively little in the way of services, for example, so the ITC’s focus on goods may be more pertinent for measuring trade’s impact in Ohio, said Todd Tucker, research director for Global Trade Watch, and Chris Slevin, a Brown aide who previously worked as Global Trade Watch’s deputy director. Even nationally, there is debate as to how much job-creating value can be found in export sectors like financial services and travel, Tucker said. Factories that make things employ a lot more people. Not to complicate this further, but ITC data can be sorted in yet another way, making the trade imbalance appear to be even worse. This occurs when some foreign-made goods are counted as ""imports for consumption,"" an ITC category with an assumption at the port of entry that the goods will be consumed in the United States. The problem occurs, critics say, when these ""imports"" wind up being shipped back abroad after being stored here temporarily. That gives them a new category on the way out -- ""re-exports"" -- which is not the same as a simple export of a product made in the United States. So they were counted as imports on the way in, but not subtracted back out as regular exports on their way out. This kind of counting, which defenders say has merit in certain circumstances, results in a higher trade deficit than when every product shipped in is counted as an import, and every product shipped out is counted as an export. By using these other categories in the ITC database, we calculated a trade deficit of $612 billion last year and a stunning $920.6 billion in 2008. These are close to the numbers Brown’s office supplied to us initially, and they support his claim -- and then some. So which figure is right? It’s a matter of legitimate dispute. Global Trade Watch says the larger numbers are more revealing and pertinent in a number of cases, especially when comparing U.S. trade relations with individual countries rather than the entire universe of global trade. The National Association of Manufacturers says that’s nonsense. From ""time immemorial,"" the Commerce/Census data have been used, measuring the total value of goods and services in and the total value of goods and services out,  and that’s the only valid way to count a deficit or surplus, said Frank Vargo, the association’s vice president for international economic affairs. ""Inside U.S. Trade,"" a publication for trade policy wonks and attorneys, discussed this at length in a Nov. 12 article. It said that ""these different approaches result in widely different numbers when applied to both the global and bilateral deficits, and they have helped fuel and confuse a debate among stakeholders."" Global Trade Watch is sticking to its guns, but so is the National Association of Manufacturers. So back to Brown’s $2-billion-a-day claim: Is it accurate? Brown, who has authored a book on what he calls the ""myths of free trade,"" derives his figure from the ITC, and while the ITC cautioned us that the official balance-of-trade measure actually comes from Commerce, it is true that some authorities regard even the outlying ITC numbers as perfectly fine to use in certain circumstances. Yet even if we were to put those numbers aside and only use the Commerce Department numbers, Brown’s figures were close to the mark before the recession. This year is not the best year to measure the normal effects of trade, and no one can predict the future; perhaps the trade deficit will stabilize at a lower number such as $500 billion a year, or $1.36 billion a day. Perhaps it won’t. But based on the historical trends, regardless of which data source is used, we say Brown’s claim is ." Claim: "More than 10 years of free trade ""has brought a $2 billion per day trade deficit."


Output: Sen. Sherrod Brown cites daily deficit figure as pricetag for NAFTA, China trade deals