First ham, then a door

FIRST HAM, THEN A DOOR…. There’s nothing wrong with the administration’s conservative detractors looking for misguided stimulus expenditures. The White House has said the money would be spent wisely, and if far-right activists want to watch the administration like a hawk, making sure there’s a legitimate explanation for every penny, fine.

But could they at least get their facts straight before throwing a fit?

Earlier, we talked about the right’s claim that the administration used $1.19 million of taxpayer funds to buy just two pounds of ham. In the real world where the grown-ups live, the Department of Agriculture actually spent $1.19 million of taxpayer funds to buy 760,000 pounds of ham — that’s 380 tons — to be distributed to local organizations that assist low-income Americans through food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens.

Also yesterday, Drudge said $1.4 million in recovery funds went to “repair a door” at Dyess Air Force Base’s “bldg 5112.” Fox News’ Glenn Beck was outraged, and said this is proof that “they’re just peeing your money away.”

“Wow, what happened to that door?” Beck asked. “That’s a lot of repairing, you know. Can we buy a new one, and cheaper?”

Wouldn’t you know it, that’s completely wrong.

[U]nder the “View all project descriptions” link on the page to which the Drudge Report linked, Recovery.gov actually states that the government awarded AFCO Technologies nearly $1.2 million to replace gas mains on the base, and $246,100 to repair doors in Building 5112. A Department of Defense document listing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects in Texas states that the doors that were repaired in Building 5112 are “hangar doors.”

Moreover, a May 5 press release from the Dyess Air Force Base stated that the money awarded for the gas main project “may have saved eight jobs” and that the base could “now possibly hire two more employees.”

So, once again, all of the relevant details of the claim are either demonstrably false or wildly misleading.

Better conservatives, please.