instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
On May 9 2019, a poster attributed to Delta Airlines apparently urging workers to forgo union dues in favor of purchasing video gaming consoles circulated on Facebook and Twitter:lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019Above a rendering of a video game controller, blue and red text urged Delta employees to purchase expensive consoles instead of paying union dues:UNION DUES COST AROUND $700 A YEARA NEW VIDEO GAME SYSTEM WITH THE LATEST HITS SOUNDS LIKE FUN. PUT YOUR MONEY TOWARDS THAT INSTEAD OF PAYING DUES TO THE UNION.The image also featured Delta's logo and a website: DontRiskItDontSignIt.com. Eoin Higgins' tweet above was shared more than 50,000 times in under six hours:Yikes, @Delta. Call us when Xbox makes a model that can raise wages, guarantee paid leave, and make jobs safer and more secure. Until then, we're sticking with the #union. #1u https://t.co/8Bb8phfzeK Transp. Trades Dept. (@TTDAFLCIO) May 9, 2019Union contract: ✅ Can afford a new video game system ✅ Guard against bad bosses ✅ If I get laid off my boss has to negotiate the terms with my union ✅ Free access to lawyers ✅ More benefitsVideo game system: you have $700 lessDelta help me I'm not sure what to decide Brett Banditelli (@banditelli) May 9, 2019Reminder that companies only start printing anti-union myths and propaganda once they start seeing worker power in action and realize what they are up against.Keep it up Delta employees! ✊🏿✊🏼✊🏾 https://t.co/UV8wlJ6tKg Game Workers Unite ✊🏿✊🏽✊🏾 (@GameWorkers) May 9, 2019Wow. Delta would give you plenty of time to play video games when they fire you for no good reason because you're an At Will employee. But a union contract protects your paycheck from arbitrary terminations. @AFLCIO @EoinHiggins_ pic.twitter.com/bM9cTtWn0o RWDSU (@RWDSU) May 9, 2019The image shared by Higgins was also shared to Reddit's r/WTF and r/ChapoTrapHouse:Gamers please don't rise up. from ChapoTrapHouseIn response to questions about the origin of the image, Higgins said that he would explain further in an upcoming article:I'll have answers to that and more in a piece Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019Delta's anti-union site DontRiskItDontSignIt.comfeatured a "printables" section, but the viral "video games" poster had either been removed, or it had never appeared on the site to begin with. However, many of the available images closely resembled the poster:One of the "printables" available as of May 9 2019 (archived here) featured a structure similar to the circulating image:However, we were unable to locate any images of the same poster uploaded to the internet prior to Higgins' tweet. On the day the tweet began circulating, IAM issued a statement about attacks from Delta on thewebsiteIAMDelta.net and on Twitter:Our statement on @Delta's attack on their own employees. #DoBetterDelta pic.twitter.com/2Kby5wTkbu Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019We contacted Delta and the International Association of Machinists (IAM, the target of Delta's union-busting efforts) to ask about the origin and authenticity of the "video games" poster. We have received no response from the airline, but the union confirmed their existence on Twitter:In employee break rooms. Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019There was more than one poster in the same vein, all of which shared the aesthetic of the website:Video games, baseball, and football? Really @Delta? Our workers want a voice on the job. #GameOverDelta #1u pic.twitter.com/AdSgxSxVHh AFL-CIO (@AFLCIO) May 10, 2019According to investigative journalism site Sludge, the site and posters are the work of a public relations firm that is notorious for its aggressive campaigns:FTI employees don't just create websites and messaging. They also work as undercover agents for some of their clients.Earlier this year, FTI employees posed as journalists for Western Wireanother website that shares a server with Delta's anti-union siteand attempted to question attorneys working with environmental nonprofit EarthRights International about its lawsuit against ExxonMobil. Legal ethics prohibit attorneys from speaking with representatives for opposing parties without their attorneys being present, so the attempt by FTI to question the EarthRights International attorneys under the guise of journalism can easily be seen as an attempt to circumvent legal ethics to gather intel for their client, ExxonMobil.We asked Delta for comment, but have not yet heard back.
answer:
Delta Airlines created a union-busting poster urging workers to buy video gaming consoles with would-be union dues.

question:
"The Republican Party of Texas marveled not in a good way at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said "the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it." Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party's promised legislation and say people can find out what's in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi's March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, "robust support for public health infrastructure," more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: "It's going to be very, very exciting." Yet there's heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what's in it. Pelosi adds: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi's statement a "stunning demonstration of political condescension." Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what's actually in the bill. Once it's passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It's not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress." His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don't think that's a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn't recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."
answer:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.

question:
"Former state Rep. Nicholas Gorham made a surprising claim last month in a commentary in The Providence Journal. ""The fact is that we have a General Assembly that has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us, yet it taxes the people as if there were no limitations on its authority to tax the people,"" he wrote in the piece, published Dec. 30. The legislature can't legally levy taxes? This called for a PolitiFact audit. First, a history lesson. When King Charles II granted a royal charter to the colony in 1663, the document, preserved in a metal and glass case at the State House, established ""a form of pure government by an elected assembly presided over by a nearly powerless, elected governor,"" according to an account on the General Assembly's website. The Assembly's supremacy continued when Rhode Island became a state, and was reaffirmed in the state's first Constitution, adopted in 1842. Article VI, Section 10 spelled it out, saying ""the General Assembly shall continue to exercise the powers it has heretofore exercised, unless prohibited in this Constitution."" The state Supreme Court consistently interpreted that to mean the power of the General Assembly was unlimited unless authority to do something was specifically given to another branch of government. Things changed in 2004, when the General Assembly, responding to pressure from good government groups, passed ""separation of powers"" legislation, a set of proposed amendments to the state Constitution. The amendments made it clear the government is divided into three separate branches, banned legislators from serving on any executive-branch boards or commissions, and gave the governor power to appoint members of agency boards. And they eliminated the catch-all Section 10. Voters approved the amendments 2-to-1. So is Gorham right that, because of 2004 vote, the General Assembly lost its ""explicit"" authority to tax? On a literal level, yes. The only reference to setting taxes in the current Constitution is a section that says that the Assembly can set the manner in which property valuations are conducted. But legal experts say on a practical level, implicit can be as good as explicit. Former state Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr., who stepped down in early 2004, says that although much was changed by the 2004 amendments, much abides. From the days of Parliament and the English kings, he said, the power to levy taxes has rested in the legislative body, a legal tradition that was carried on in England's colonies in the Americas. ""Inherent in the legislative power is the power to tax,"" Flanders said. ""You wouldn't need an explicit grant."" Richard Raspallo, legal counsel to House Majority Leader Nicholas A. Mattiello, agreed, saying there are several examples of legislative power that is assumed despite a lack of specific language in the Constitution. ""Where is it explicitly stated in the Constitution that the General Assembly has the authority to require Rhode Island citizens to follow traffic rules, or have a license, or grant people the right to marry, or require people to have certain educational standards in order to work in certain fields?"" he said. ""At some point, the General Assembly has been granted power by the people to legislate for the common good,"" he said. ""That includes the imposition of taxes to pay for the welfare of the citizenry."" Gorham indirectly acknowledged that, but said the ambiguity shows the need for a state constitutional convention to settle the matter definitively. (Voters will be asked in November whether a convention should be convened.) As he wrote in his commentary: ""Of course, I plan to pay my taxes, but you really have to wonder sometimes. If the people really wanted to get taxes and, yes, borrowing under control and on the people's terms, the Constitution, just the way it is, would be a great place to start. Let the revolution begin!"" Our ruling Nicholas Gorham said the Rhode Island General Assembly ''has no explicit constitutional authority'' to levy taxes. History tells us he's right. Had he suggested that the lack of explicit language meant no one had to pay taxes, we'd view his claim in a far different light. But he didn't, so we rule it . (If you hear a claim you'd like us to check, email us at [emailprotected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)"
answer:
The General Assembly "has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us.