> "A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

> In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit...

> The two primary forms of the slippery slope argument are the logical form, (in which acceptance of A must logically lead to acceptance of the undesirable B), and the psychological form, in which it is argued that the acceptance of A will, over time, lead people to be more willing to accept B.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Also: general hand-waving like "based on this government's track record" does not a pattern make. Like most of my cited sources say: "based on little or no supporting evidence."