5 ms·
This isn't a bad thing. It's an action that will cause retooling and any of the associated costs to happen when they otherwise wouldn't. Let them pick the cont
by ianleeclark 7y ago
This isn't a bad thing. It's an action that will cause retooling and any of the associated costs to happen when they otherwise wouldn't.
Let them pick the contract up. Hopefully they charge more, take longer to implement, and are generally worse.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoNot only does this have little impact to ICE, the taxpayer gets soaked. Expensive outrage porn.
- kevinmgranger 7y agoThe more expensive it is to operate ICE, the harder it is to justify its continued operation.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThe project is worth ~$100k-$200k. It’s a rounding error in their budget (ICE annual budget is about $8 billion a year for FY2018; for context, US DHS is ~$92 billion/yr) No one is ever going to deprecate ICE because it’s too expensive. They’ll just pull the money from someplace like NASA (unfortunate reality, not a policy I endorse).
- ezrast 7y agoSo it's a rounding error for DHS but an expensive soaking for the taxpayer? That doesn't bear out. No one is going to deprecate ICE because it's too expensive, but they might do it due to extensive political pressure from all sectors. I'm okay with paying 0.001 USD or so to send that message.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- quickSilver78 7y agoDo you think there could be a reasonable way to fix that issue? Maybe a compromise between voters picking where their taxes go and a minimum for what tax payers have to pay for a certain area?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- solidsnack9000 7y agoIt might not even cause retooling. They can hire someone else to run Chef for them.