Hawley declares April 15 Big Government Day
Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R,C,I-Batavia) declared today, April 15, as "Big Government Day" in New York State. While April 15 is well known as the deadline to file your taxes, it carries even more significance this year as it is also the deadline for gun owners to register their so-called "assault weapons" with the state or become felons. Hawley is using the day as a reminder to his constituents of the need to stand strong in the face of ever-growing state and federal governments.
“The government was not content simply taking your money, so they’ve decided to take your guns, too,” said Hawley. “It is appropriate that we commemorate this day as Big Government Day and take a moment to understand the massive scope of the government’s size. New York State is both the highest taxed and least free state in the entire country thanks to the forces of New York City liberals. On this day where the government is coming after both our money and our 2nd Amendment rights, let’s make sure that those of us who love our families and communities make a stand for smaller government.”
While New Yorkers are unfortunately accustomed to paying oppressive taxes on Big Government Day, this is the first year that the registration requirement of the SAFE Act is also in effect. Numerous reports in the media have indicated that the rate of compliance with the SAFE Act is expected to be less than 10 percent, with local officials refusing to enforce the law. Hawley sees the flawed gun control legislation as not only unconstitutional, but also as a case study of the ineffectiveness of big government.
Big Government Day is a sober reminder that New Yorkers live in the least free state in the country. According to a 2013 report by the Mercatus Center, New York “is by far the least free state in the Union.” The reality that Upstate New Yorkers know too well is that their neighbors are leaving the state. Big government forces families to flee New York for areas where they are not overburdened by highest-in-the-nation taxes and unconstitutional infringements on personal freedoms.
Isn't Big Government what Mr.Hawley just voted for in the New York State budget...The whole budget is about more government control..Their is nothing in the budget that lowers spending or cuts the size of government in New York State..
Such hypocritical nonsense. If Representative Hawley is so interested in "personal freedom," then why does he rail against a woman's right to make choices about her own body -- and why does he not support gay individuals' right to marry the people whom they love? Maybe Representative Hawley should spend less time grandstanding and more time doing the actual *work* that he was sent to Albany to do.
By the way, the Mercatus Center is a right wing Koch Brothers-funded think tank; it's hardly a source of unbiased information.
It doesnt take a "right wing think tank" to know that the people's republic of new york is a sad reminder of the once mighty empire state it used to be. , its nothing more now than over taxed, over regulated, anti business, anti gun, welfare haven. People and business are leaving as fast as they ever were despite the Governor claims.
Blah blah blah
Ahhh Yes, the automatic go to response. If it's not GW Bush, racism, homophobia, Tea Party...it's the Koch brothers. Those things are gonna wear a hole in the tool bag.
Ah, yes. The automatic "go-to response" for right wing extremists and conservative apologists, when confronted with facts: deny the truth. Once again, I guess that reality has a left wing bias.
"The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, individual donors and foundations. "
I wasn't denying anything. Just wondering what the Koch's funding has to do with anything. If Koch funding is synonymous with a lack of credibility then the left is screwed because no less than 37 current Democrats have accepted Koch money. They are a strawman, and an old one at that.
Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.
/ end quote
Either a study stands or falls on its own merits. Who funded is not inherently evidence against. It's quite possible, of course, that the study is tainted by the source of its funds, but there mere fact that it was funded by this or that party isn't proof its tainted. The study stands or falls on its own merits and not any outside agency.
This is not the same thing as the "genetic fallacy." Sorry.
Are you actually trying to suggest that conservative think tanks don't push/fund studies that push/promote conservative principles -- and, conversely, that liberal think tanks don't do the same, with regard to liberal ideas and policies? Because, frankly, I think that's pretty ridiculous. I'm certain that I can find a liberal study that supports the opposite supposition to this silly right wing Mercatus Study. Partisan think tanks exist to produce and to push partisan propaganda. So, no, I'd have to say that this study (the product of a partisan think tank) does NOT, in fact, stand "on its own merits."
It's a ludicrous proposition that New York State is the "least free" state in the nation. How are you defining "freedom"? Are you saying that the people who might define that rather nebulous concept in a different manner are wrong? How do you account for the fact that the Mercatus study does NOT account for reproductive rights, or for marriage equality, or for incarceration for drug crimes... or for any other of a million different "personal freedoms" (or violations of said "freedoms")? The fact is, this study is pushing a very specific agenda -- a narrowly-focused conservative agenda. I'm sure that I could produce studies pushing *other* agendas (other notions of "personal freedom") that would proffer completely different conclusions.
I stand by my initial statement. Representative Hawley's statement is hypocritical, and his view of "personal freedom" is limited to his own narrow interests. That's all fine and dandy, but please, let's call a spade a spade. Why even try to pretend that Hawley's statement (and the study that he references) are neutral and unbiased?
To say this or that study is funded by this or that group so therefore it lacks merit is a logical fallacy on its face. It's a very poor form of argumentation.
Unless you can discredit the actual content of the study in question by delving into its contents, then you're making no kind of rational argument at all.
"How do you account for the fact that the Mercatus study does NOT account for reproductive rights, or for marriage equality, or for incarceration for drug crimes... or for any other of a million different "personal freedoms" (or violations of said "freedoms")?"
That gets into the merits of the study and begins to approach a logical and rational argument against it.
I have no position on the study whatsoever. I haven't read it. Don't have any interest in reading it. But arguing that it's invalid merely because of its funding is no kind of argument at all.
I have explained ad nauseum why this study is ridiculous and problematic -- and why the source (a partisan think tank) should, at the very least, be noted. That is certainly a lot more than Representative Hawley has done.
That, however, wasn't even the main point of my initial post. The stupid study is incidental to the FACT that Representative Hawley is being very selective -- and yes, I'd say, hypocritical -- in his use of the term "personal freedom." Funny how everyone seems to be willfully ignoring that fact.