Slashdot Mirror
Kamala Harris Introduces Bill To Send Millions To Local Governments For Tech Support (theverge.com)
Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has introduced legislation that would allocate millions of dollars for local government to create dedicated teams that could "update and rebuild" government systems. The Verge reports: The United States Digital Service, an office established in 2014 after the widespread failures of Healthcare.gov, provides IT support for the federal government, bringing technologists into the government to work on tools like federal websites. It's continued to operate under the Trump administration, and some states, Harris' office notes, have experimented with similar teams. Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams.
Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams. Under the plan, the national Digital Service would offer two-year grants, giving state and local governments between $200,000 and $2.5 million per year. Those governments would be required to take on 20 percent of costs and to spend at least half of the money on talent, rather than tech. The national Digital Service, under the proposal, would report bi-annually to Congress on the progress of the grantees. The bill would provide funding through 2027.
Harris' bill, the Digital Service Act, would provide an annual $50 million to the federal service, but it also goes further, allocating $15 million per year to state and local governments to create similar teams. Under the plan, the national Digital Service would offer two-year grants, giving state and local governments between $200,000 and $2.5 million per year. Those governments would be required to take on 20 percent of costs and to spend at least half of the money on talent, rather than tech. The national Digital Service, under the proposal, would report bi-annually to Congress on the progress of the grantees. The bill would provide funding through 2027.
Don't worry. The probability of Kamala Harris being the next president is exactly 0%.
If you look at how she is running her campaign, it is obvious she isn't even trying to be the next Barack Obama. She is trying to be the next Jesse Jackson. She wants to be the national leader and spokesperson for the black community. Unlike the presidency, she actually has a good shot at that (there is not much effective competition).
She announced her candidacy in Oakland. Her national headquarters is in Baltimore. That is not what someone interested in building a broad coalition would be doing.
This is just standard, time-honored "pork belly politics." California companies are betting that this legislation will channel loads of federal money to California companies. She is just looking out for the interests of her past and future campaign donors. Very transparent what the intent is here. This is just how politics is done.
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
The biggest reason Harris is DOA on the national stage is she's pushing reparations to atone the "original sin" of slavery in America. Since those dollars will be extracted from the donor class, she's toast, even on the democratic ticket.
You're being unfair. I give her at least a 1.5% chance. With a margin of error of 1.5%.
But she is trying to get her name out there as I think you're suggesting. Name recognition matters. A year ago, had anyone even heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Beto O'Rourke? Or for that matter, Kamala Harris? Maybe those who really pay attention to politics had, but it's still doubtful for AOC.
Now they're all household names, with particular thanks to Fox News for elevating AOC to that level. She is pretty extreme, but in past years such junior representatives would have been mostly ignored as that crazy liberal who really doesn't have any significant influence in the first place. I'm thinking of one particular Democrat Congresswoman from my hometown who has been in office for 30 years or so and has had very little influence at all other than casting her vote with other Dems. She just doesn't get that much attention, but AOC is in some ways like Trump. She sometimes speaks before she thinks things through and she likes to use social media and also get in her opponent's faces.
It's like the right wants to find the most extreme Democrat they can and use them to paint the entire party with a broad brush.
And I apologize for wandering away from Kamala Harris. She's the Democratic Senator from California, right? The one who is not Dianne Feinstein? Been a Senator for a whole 2 years?
At this point in the election cycle I think many of us are waiting for candidates like Harris to drop out before we start trying to figure out who we support. And that's probably bad because if we got involved much earlier in the process maybe we'd have better candidates on both sides of the aisle and we wouldn't be trying to figure out if Trump or Hillary would be worse for our country.
In an ideal world, the Hatfields and McCoys would get along and we'd honestly be torn over who would make America even greater, but no matter who won we would still have faith in their ability to lead us.
I can dream anyway.
Do you have anything to add other than "durrr gubbmint baaaad *drool*"?
Seriously that insight and thought-free attitude is nothing but deeply tedious. If you think "spending other peoples money" is bad, then why aren't you living in the government-free paradise of the Congo?
I also love the irony of such a complaint made on the web on the internet, two things developed with government money.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
First, define hurt. A vaccine injection hurts for a moment but helps for many years.
Why should Warren care if her law dents money she won't notice, if the amount it saves her over, say, ten years exceeds the amount it costs her over ten years?
Those who care about any pain, regardless of gain, are penny wise and dollar foolish. They're not the people you want in charge.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)