Does that in any way change his argument that the money could have been put to better use?

I don't think it does. In the example put forth in the article, the library had only four computers! In the case of just this one library, they could have had: ipads, kindles, more computers, more books and other media.

I think it's kind of a no-brainer that this is a prime example of incompetence in government.

They would also need to hire someone to manage those devices which would cost maybe 2x the router year after year. It'd suck too (not going to get a competent person in that position).

My company provides free I.T. services, support, and sometimes equipment to non-profits and other community organizations. We would be happy to be the on-call techs for stuff like that.

I would be surprised if there wasn't somebody in their area that does the same.

Yes, because his argument was that it could be done with cheaper hardware and some IT-smarts (aka salaried employees managing it).

> ...and some IT-smarts...

I don't think he said that. For one, cheaper hardware doesn't imply increased management costs; for two, the more expensive hardware didn't come with a support contract included in the price (at least, it's not mentioned in the article); for three, his comment reads to me that they could have optionally put the money towards employing people, to put people back to work -- i.e., it was one example of a better way to spend the money. I don't see anything in his comment that implies, "cheaper hardware and some IT-smarts...".

Some dude is checking (or should be checking) on the PCs in that library anyway.

Hell, a college kid could do the job.