She still has it. A very interesting offer was just made for it yesterday.
Wonder if she had it cleaned?
This ‘private funding’ is donations, mostly from wealthy corporations or people. And they just deduct that from their taxes, so the rest of us (or our children) pay more taxes to cover this.
So when they claim this is all privately funded, or that the LA Olympics were entirely done via private donations, etc., that’s all bullshit – it was really an expenditure of our tax funds.
Well to be completely accurate a $1 donation to a presidential library isn’t a $1 reduction in tax revenues collected by the government. The reduction in tax revenues is only the $1 x the incremental tax rate, so at the maximum 39.6% that would be about $0.40.
Therefore 60% of the contribution could be argued to be funded by private money.
Have you been there recently? The Nixon Libary was run by a private foundation for most of its history. The NARA only got involved in the last few years (I presume because there aren’t enough Nixon apologists left alive to keep the foundation in business) and the first thing they did was tear out the “Watergate was a Democratic frame job” exhibit and replace it with one that has generally been considered pretty accurate. Here’s an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01nixon.html?_r=0
Something similar happened at the Reagan library with the National Archives putting in an Iran-Contra exhibit a couple of years ago. It seems like the Archives are willing to let the presidents and their foundations have pretty wide editorial control while they’re still alive, but less so after.
I would hope that GWB’s library has a copy of “My Pet Goat”. It’s historic! 
The Carter Center is a foundation and is organizationally entirely separate from the Carter Library, though located on the same grounds. Like the Clinton Foundation, it serves a tangible purpose.
I think the arguments being made that the operating costs are on the taxpayer dime and the original building costs are de facto public money are good ones. The costs for some of them have been absolutely staggering, and while museum-type historical places are generally commendable, IMHO that money could have better used for projects that were not entirely partisan monuments to vanity. I suppose the only real explanation is that US presidents have the stature of royalty while also being active policymakers, so I suppose many see the libraries as both a tribute to the office and a preserve of one particular slice of history. But it’s incredible how big and lavish some of these places are. The Reagan library contains, among other things, the actual Boeing 707 that served as Air Force One during that time.
You could also argue that what’s worth keeping now fits onto a hard drive.
Here’s a cheaper-to-the-taxpayer model that would work:
I think we should just get Disney to build one big presidential library/theme park. They could put in all the animatronic presidents. Fun for scholars AND the whole family!
I fully support this idea!
I was there last month, and can confirm that this is the case. That one gallery was a bit of a contrast to the “Weren’t Dick and Pat Wonderful” theme throughout the rest of the exhibits.
From what I understand, Clinton’s library played a role in the revitalization of an area of Little Rock. It would be nice if Obama’s library were used to spur development and continue efforts against poverty and racism on the S Side of Chicago.
Overall, I find myself essentially ambivalent about the libraries. People seem to be becoming less and less interested in even our recent past. It doesn’t bother me that the libraries might - in some small way - provide a counterbalance.It is weird. tho, when someone like Ford has (If I heard correctly) TWO libraries.
They sort of have that already.
Palin’s wouldn’t have stocked periodicals.
Are you kidding? It would have stocked all of them!
Laundering bribe money? 
That’s where I got the idea. Just add the libraries and you’re done!
Wait, they’re not even real libraries? These guys need to get over themselves. Can a president decide *not *to have a presidential library dedicated to them? What happens if they say they don’t want one?
Actually no. The Nixon Library only contained pre and post Presidency materials, Presidency materials were held in DC after Watergate.An Act of Congress in 2004 permitted their transfer outside DC after which the Library became part of NARA
All right, nobody move. I’ve got a Library Science degree, and I’m not afraid to use it! 
The word “library” doesn’t refer only to your local public library where you go to check out the latest Grisham novel for some beach reading. Libraries don’t necessarily have to circulate all, or even any, of their materials. All of the Presidential libraries qualify as “real” libraries, in that they are facilities which collect and maintain papers, manuscripts, and other sources of information and make them available for research and consultation. No, you can’t just browse through the Kennedy papers willy-nilly. But if you are doing genuine scholarly research, you can arrange to consult them.
It might be more accurate to call them archives, since so many of their resources are unpublished materials in manuscript form, but in the broad sense presidential libraries certainly fall under the heading of “special libraries,” which is one of the major types of library recognized by the American Library Association.
Most of the presidential libraries also function as museums, as well. The museum part tends to be the part that the general public sees, since most tourists who visit the Kennedy library aren’t there to do in-depth scholarly research. I note that most of the presidential libraries actually have the name “Presidential Library and Museum” in their official title (scroll down for the list of all of them). Interestingly, the most recent ones, starting with Clinton’s, use the term “Presidential Center.” They do seem to be moving away from the term “library,” for whatever reason.
Is it the most cost-effective way of preserving the presidential papers? Maybe not, but it’s what we have now, and does seem to be required by law. For the sake of history and future research, it’s important to preserve these resources, I hope we can agree. If not in individual presidential libraries, I imagine it would need to be done at the National Archives. Which is a better practice, I have not researched the matter enough to say.
I hear you can check out My Pet Goat from GWB’s library.
The problem isn’t presidential libraries per se, it’s the way the presidential libraries, which contain public records, are amalgamated with private museums built to aggrandize the individual presidents.
Congress has rightly designated the National Archives as the custodian of presidential papers. This is a big improvement over the previous non-system, under which presidents took their own papers with them and decided for themselves who could see what and where.
But, I would prefer that Congress had directed the NA to store the papers in a giant building in Washington, or even a complex of buildings if one wasn’t enough. Besides discouraging monument-building, this would be more convenient for researchers who could research matters spanning more than one administration without having to travel around the country.
Instead, each president decides where to build his own monument, and they bestow the “library” site as a political favor (see Obama and Rahm Emanuel). Then, inevitably they accompany the library with a museum offering a hagiographic presentation of their life. The museum is privately funded, yes, but it benefits from the association with the public records in the library (“The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum”), and gets first call on displaying the records to the public.
It makes for monumentalism more befitting an emperor than the citizen executive of a republic.