Re:Update from Chef
by toomuchtodo on Monday September 23, 2019 @05:44PM
(#21054068)
Not only does this have little impact to ICE, the taxpayer gets soaked. Expensive outrage porn.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Update from Chef
by kevinmgranger on Monday September 23, 2019 @06:38PM
(#21054529)
The more expensive it is to operate ICE, the harder it is to justify its continued operation.
Re:Update from Chef
by toomuchtodo on Monday September 23, 2019 @06:46PM
(#21054588)
The 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).
So 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.
Re:Update from Chef
by quickSilver78 on Monday September 23, 2019 @09:53PM
(#21055719)
Do 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?