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'.

[Q]: 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 seesuch 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. Weasked 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."
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: "In metro Atlanta, the land of smog alerts and farmland-turned-to-suburbs, one local county makes a bold claim about its efforts to be environmentally conscious. DeKalb County, its website says, is ""the greenest county in America."" Let's put that on some recycled paper and send it to each of the county's estimated 750,000 residents. DeKalb's communications director, Burke Brennan, sent PolitiFact Georgia an e-mail making the case for the county. It includes: ""In DeKalb County, we are taking the lead on sustainability ... we are one step closer to being the greenest county in America,"" DeKalb County Chief Executive Officer Burrell Ellis said in 2009 when the county was honored by the ARC. Many folks we discussed this claim with used phrases like ""bold"" or ""ambitious"" to describe DeKalb's audacity, not willing to publicly dismiss it. Some were willing to criticize the claim. ""That's all a good case for them to be one of the greenest counties in Georgia,"" said Mark Woodall, Georgia chapter chairman of the Sierra Club, which claims to be the largest grassroots environmental organization in the state. ""DeKalb being the greenest county in America seems pretty unthinkable."" Being ""green,"" means many things these days. Some organizations have occasionally released surveys rankings America's greenest cities, but we found few similar rankings of counties. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit organization that works to improve health and health care for Americans, earlier this year looked at the environmental health of each U.S. county. One category was physical health. The foundation used data put together by researchers from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the physical health of each county. The criteria included how many days the air was unhealthy, the number of days the air was unhealthy due to ozone, access to healthy foods and how many liquor stores were in a county. DeKalb ranked near the bottom of Georgia counties, 153rd, in terms of physical health. Some categories that DeKalb is bragging about are difficult to compare. In other areas, such as the number of LEED-certified buildings, Dekalb has competition. Gwinnett had three LEED-certifiied structures, according to the U.S. Green Building Council. DeKalb is an Energy Star partner -- a federal effort to protect the environment through energy-efficient practices -- but so are Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties and the city of Atlanta. On hiking and biking trails, DeKalb may run into some argument about having the most in Georgia. Cobb County, for example, lists about 75 miles of trails within its cities and unincorporated areas. It was suggested we look at Arlington County, Va. to find another county that could make a case it is greener than DeKalb. The county has a page on its website with more than a dozen awards and recognition for its sustainable community and environmental efforts. Arlington won two National Association of Counties Achievement Awards this year for its recycling efforts. That organization also named Arlington its Outstanding Civil Engineering Project award in 2006 for its Green Building Program. Other counties, like Boulder, Colo., have goals such as reducing outdoor water use by 50 percent by using indigenous plants and recycling 50 percent of construction waste. DeKalb's case was muddied in December when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined $453,000 for 836 sewage spills over the last five years. The EPA estimates there are about 40,000 spills from the nation's 25,000 sewage systems a year. California officials reported about 2,000 spills into the San Francisco Bay in 2008. Brennan noted the day after the fine was announced, county commissioners voted 6-1 to spend $1.345 billion to make repairs to its water and sewer system, nearly twice as much money as the EPA recommended. DeKalb taxpayers will pay higher water and sewer bills to help fund the work. Despite the fine, Brennan stuck by DeKalb's claim. ""Nobody here is claiming perfection, but based on the programs, awards, designations and initiatives DeKalb has in place and ongoing, I am sticking with the motto 'DeKalb is the greenest county in America,' "" Brennan told us in an e-mail. ""After all, 'Cowboy Capital of the World' was already taken,"" added Brennan, referring to Oakdale, Calif. DeKalb has certainly tried to make its mark as an environmentally conscious county. But DeKalb's claim of being the ""greenest county"" in the nation ignores critical facts that would give a visitor to its web site a different impression." Claim: The Greenest County in America.
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: "Native American tribes have been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. ""Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,"" Biden told The Arizona Republic May 21. ""He took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. It's unacceptable."" Indian treaty rights recognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States' protection. Under a ""trust responsibility"" legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes. That consultation process started before the lawsuit over the delay in payments. A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasn't until May 5 that the Treasury Department said it would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Biden's claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to the Alaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of ""tribal government,"" or ""Indian tribe"" and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at ""a later date"" based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back ""until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved."" The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5 said the judge's April 27 ruling ""led to the (Treasury) Department's announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes."" In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor ""arguably should have produced better results,"" but a court intervention was not warranted. ""'Egregious' delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis,"" U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11 opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was ""lagging unreasonably"" behind in delivering the funds. ""The Secretary has not been 'twiddling his thumbs',"" he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, ""then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today."" Biden said Trump ""took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued."" It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued." Claim: Joe Biden Says President Donald Trump "took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued."
[A]:
2