Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "In a public interview hosted by the Austin-based Texas Tribune, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White compared Republican leadership on state budget woes to how things swung in ye olde U.S.S.R. You remember, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- home of the late dictator Joseph Stalin and run single-handedly by the Communist Party prior to the government's collapse in 1991. White said March 9 he’d take a more deliberate approach to spending than the state's top leaders, all Republican, who asked government agencies in January to suggest ways to cut their budgets by 5 percent. White said if he's in charge, ""it won’t be done by things that are just across the board, Soviet style, you know, budget management that only career politicians seem to embrace."" Pressed by interviewer Evan Smith, White said: ""Is it just a coincidence that 5 percent is the appropriate amount for each state agency?... No. It’s because that’s the way that career politicians know how to run government."" We started our review of White's statement wondering what ""Soviet-style"" budget management means. Several expert professors said that historically, the term didn't refer to across-the-board budget cuts. Professor Paul Gregory of the University of Houston Department of History said ""Soviet style"" makes him think of a monopoly party (in this case, the Communist Party) dictating everything to subordinates without any possibility of change. Gregory said Soviet-style budgeting also means hiding expenditures you don’t want people to see—such as massive investments in military infrastructure. Peter Caldwell, a Rice University professor of history, said budget-writing in the Soviet Union most often consisted of “huge and crude” decisions to invest in one part of the economy at the expense of another. And H. Stephen Gardner, chairman of the Baylor University Department of Economics, said he’d define Soviet-style management as overly centralized as opposed to giving autonomy to individual units of government. So are there ""Soviet style"" ways that state leaders have approached the budget? Some background: In January, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus--mindful of a projected state revenue shortfall that could reach $15 billion by next January--jointly asked agencies to submit plans identifying savings in 5 percent “priority increments” in their 2010-11 appropriations from state revenue. Such plans could lead to cuts, though no decisions have been made and some programs have already been excused. No doubt, the leaders' request is a centralized one. But is it Soviet-style in any other way? We turned to White for elaboration. White’s campaign pointed us to a statement issued by White, the former Houston mayor, in January: “Well-run organizations cut spending based on priorities and where they can best attain productivity improvements. So, for example, in the city of Houston we made smaller cuts in public safety because that was the highest priority. And we were able to cut more in garbage collection and disposal through productivity improvements.” White then told us that by ""Soviet style,"" he doesn't mean that Texas state government owns the means of production, as in the Soviet Union. “Obviously we have a market system,” White said. He described his alternative approach to the looming revenue gap, saying that as governor, he'd focus on funding priorities such as education while encouraging agencies to improve productivity via ""process re-engineering"" without hurting the delivery of services to taxpayers. He said the state also would seek savings by renegotiating vendor contracts. Also, he said, there’d be regular meetings with agency chiefs to talk about how they’re cutting spending and avoiding non-essential hirings. “I would have had reports back to me weekly and monthly concerning the efficiencies identified,” White said. We didn't get to why White considers the existing approach ""Soviet style"" before he had to go. We asked the professors if ""Soviet style"" accurately characterizes the GOP leaders' request for proposed budget cuts. Gregory said describing the request from Perry, et al. that way “doesn’t seem to have any relevance to what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union. ... It's inappropriate to use that term."" Gardner agreed, saying: ""It’s a bit hyperbolic to refer to this (budget cutting) as Soviet style. I should admit I have done exactly the same thing myself on matters of budgeting.” The point of saying as much, Gardner said, is to elicit an emotional reaction. He added that Republicans who cast President Barack Obama as socialist — Perry has told reporters he thinks Obama has socialist beliefs — are likewise guilty of hyperbole for dramatic effect. The professor, who said he considers Obama a centrist, speculated that Noam Chomsky, a left-leaning linguist who writes on public affairs, would call the president a ""crazed capitalist."" ""If White’s point is that budget management is being handled in an overly centralized way,"" Gardner said, ""I can see the element of truth there. The problem I would have is even if you say I am going to be more careful and more surgically look at the right places to cut, you’re still using a more centralized approach.” Caldwell agreed with the psychological impact, if not the accuracy, of ""Soviet style."" Generally, he said, “anyone who ever mentions the Soviet economy or Naziism when they’re talking about American domestic debate is usually off track. They’re referring to crude examples to raise the stakes of a debate. They’re not necessarily wanting a careful, rational debate. Who in America wants the Soviet economy or supports Naziism?” Our conclusion? The GOP leaders' request that agencies submit proposed budget cuts isn’t Soviet style — not even close. At best, White's statement is an example of how politicians try to light up a room. It's so off base, we're lighting up the meter: !" Claim: "Bill White Says Republican state leaders are using ""Soviet-style"" budget management."

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had “fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn’t replace them.” The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about “politics and power.” Legum’s commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon. Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation’s infectious disease defense infrastructure. The “pandemic response team” firing claim referred to news accounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted. Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer’s team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported “had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks,” had been fired one month prior. It’s thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer’s position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time. Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that “Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China.” That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency’s efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration. And as the CDC told FactCheck.org, the cuts were ultimately avoided because Congress provided other funding. Claim: The Trump administration fired the U.S. pandemic response team in 2018 to cut costs.

Output: 2


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Local and state governments are expected to have budget shortfalls as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And, according to the Democrat in North Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, the Republican incumbent thinks struggling communities should go bankrupt. That’s what Cal Cunningham said about Sen. Thom Tillis. ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed,"" Cunningham tweeted April 24, linking to a Politico story. Is that true? There’s a lot of context being left out. Yes, Tillis did say he is ""more or less aligned"" with what McConnell, the U.S. Senate majority leader, said about not giving more federal dollars to states that had pre-existing budget problems. McConnell proposed allowing them to file for bankruptcy, which states are not currently permitted to do. But Cunningham exaggerated what we know about Tillis’ position. Tillis’ comments clearly show he doesn’t want the federal government to pay for state debt that wasn’t incurred during the coronavirus outbreak. What’s less clear is whether he wants those states to go the bankruptcy route. So what did McConnell say about bankruptcy? In a radio interview on April 22, McConnell said states with pre-existing problems might be better off declaring bankruptcy than by expecting additional funding from the federal government. But he didn’t specifically say he ""wanted"" states to declare bankruptcy, only that he supports it as an option. ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route. It saves some cities. And there’s no good reason for it not to be available,"" McConnell said. ""My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that. That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of."" As The Atlantic reported, McConnell expanded on his bankruptcy comments in another radio interview that day: ""We’re not interested in solving their pension problems for them. We’re not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they've made in the past, we’re not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created themselves (with) bad decisions in the past."" That brings us to Tillis and how closely he has ""agreed"" with McConnell. Audio of the April 24 town hall shows a constituent named Charles saying he has a question about the future: ""Will the Senate vote to bail out poorly-run states that were near bankrupt before COVID-19 hit?"" Tillis wasn’t asked about states in general. He was asked specifically about ""poorly-run states that were near bankrupt"" prior to the pandemic. Tillis said he doesn’t think those states should be bailed out. ""Well, Charles, that's a great question and personally I don't think we should, and I don't think that we can,"" Tillis said. He then said the $2 trillion economic stimulus gave him ""pause,"" but was worth it. Then he used North Carolina’s state government as an example of good financial stewardship: ""I'm not so sure that taxpayer dollars for North Carolina should go to a state, a county, or a city that, like you said, was in poor economic shape before we ever had the virus. We need to take care of first responders. We need to take care of law enforcement. And we will do that. But I don't believe that I can support any measure that is effectively a bailout for poorly run state and local governments. ""We can look at things on a case-by-case basis where it's very clear that the damage is done because of the virus impact. But a broad-based bailout is not something I'd be prepared to support."" That’s when Tillis brought up McConnell’s comments. ""You probably heard Leader McConnell's comments about it, I'm more or less aligned with Leader McConnell on the issue,"" Tillis said, a few seconds later adding: ""I think we need to work on executing (plans already signed into law) and not really entertain a discussion of trillions more going into jurisdictions that really need to get their financial houses in order."" Cunningham spokeswoman Rachel Petri said Tillis’s comments about McConnell show he’s in lockstep with the Senate leader, who said ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route."" Tillis elaborated on his position in an interview with Fox News radio's Guy Benson on April 29. Benson asked him about McConnell’s comments that money should not cover pre-pandemic budget holes (without mentioning the bankruptcy idea). Tillis said the Senate ""will go back and take a look at well-documented cases for the costs of the response, potentially the cause of some of the revenues in this year based on closures."" When PolitiFact asked about Tillis’ position on the bankruptcy option, Tillis campaign spokesman Andrew Romeo said: ""Sen. Tillis has never advocated for any state or municipality to go bankrupt as a result of COVID-19, has already delivered billions of dollars in relief to North Carolina, and has consistently said that he supports providing targeted assistance for communities that have been impacted by the virus."" Cunningham tweeted, ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed."" The tweet lacks so much context that it’s several degrees removed from what’s actually been said. McConnell wasn’t talking about just any states, he was talking about states that were in poor financial shape before the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, McConnell said he supported bankruptcy as a novel option for states, particularly for those with pre-existing pension liabilities. Tillis said he agreed with McConnell ""more or less."" He agreed that Congress shouldn’t pay for revenue losses that aren’t related to the coronavirus outbreak. But Tillis never actually said he wanted states to go bankrupt. And he said he will consider federal aid for smaller governments on a case-by-case basis. Cunningham’s tweet exaggerates what McConnell said and misrepresents what Tilils has said about federal coronavirus aid. It contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." Claim: Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed.


Output: 0