Do you think they can chip in a little bit for all of you out there with upside down mortgages instead of dipping into my pocket for them?

Good for them. I am glad that they are spending their personal money to update their private settings in the White House. Should have been the rule for every president. They are servants of the people, so no reason for us to foot the bill of decoration, bcs Mrs Bush, did not like the taste of Mrs Reagan...

i dunno, the president has a lot to think about. i'm happy to see he has the proper environment to enhance his best mental health (and his family's certainly falls under "his"). i couldn't think straight in some '80s chintz blitz.

I dunno, I could see the taxpayers footing the bill for redecorating. Having lived in a furnished apartment for 9 months, I can say with authority that living somewhere that is not yours is crappy. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than being in my own home again with my decor displaying MY choices. Living that way for four years? No thank you! Telling a person "You have to move here" and then not giving them some stipend to deal with said move? Also no thank you! We'd frown on a company that did that, why should we?

That said, them using their own money is a nice gesture.

That is very cool. I love that Michelle is planting a Victory Garden as well.

Very cool, indeed.

In addition to being a nice thing to do to save taxpayers, it also helps me believe that the First Family is more in touch with what it actually costs to live these days. Just like shopping at J.Crew or planting a garden does.

Mind you, if things went completely upside down and we really got a President who didn't have a million dollars from a book deal (or a rich daddy), I'd be okay with taxpayers helping out a little. But, even knowing the Obamas aren't hurting for cash, it means something to me that they seem to value what they have, don't seem to spend unnecessarily or austentatiously and seem to be teaching good spending values to their children.

Given how much Presidents are paid, they can certainly afford to pay for their own paint, furniture, etc., and I applaud the Obamas for not spending taxpayer funds on their own quarters.

This has got to be the most interesting presidency we've ever had. I just adore how the Obama's work together as a family and am thrilled that they are paying for this out of their own pockets.
As posted above, living in someone else's decor is a crappy experience. The Victory garden is terrific, I can't wait to see how they decorate!

Bravo for Obama not spending $100k of taxpayer funding on redecorating.

However, that compliment looses a lot of impact with the way to seems to be spending BILLIONS of taxpayer funds.

Not to mention the fact that "public servants" don't get paid the amazing salaries they might get in the private sector... I have no problem with reasonable interior decorating for the person elected to fill the role "the most powerful 'man' in the world". It would be an embarrassment in the eyes of the world not to honor the first family's living situation at all! (But I do think the Obama's are doing really well in trying to walk the walk and talk the talk, and not act like divas just because they could probably get away with it.)

more proof that Obama will save our country and the planet? i think not. they're all show, even that lil' garden thing.

Given how many folks are about to loose their jobs in MI, I would say this is only thing the Obama's could do without looking rather out of touch. Empty gesture strictly for optics. The Obama's made close to 5 million dollars last year. I think they can afford a hundred grand to redecorate their own quarters.

Let's overlook their decision to bring in their own chef but keep the current head chef on the payroll as well because they're afraid of the fallout of firing a woman who's an ethnic minority from a top job. Something tells me two head chefs is a little more costly than a living quarters redecoration or a vegetable garden offset.

I think it's smart. Does it mean they're the nicest people in the world, or just politically savvy? Who knows. But it's the right move in this economic environment.

Although this is clearly a political consideration -- how else to explain turning down the privately-funded Historical Association contributions -- I think the tone of this modest decision is pitch perfect and smart.

I thought they're hiring Michael Smith as their interior designer? If that's the case, they're going to have to dig deep into their pockets because this guy doesn't come cheap.

to design the White House, you'd cut your fee. how many people get that call?

"Given how much Presidents are paid, they can certainly afford to pay for their own paint, furniture, etc...."

US Presidents are paid $400,000/year, plus $50,000 in expenses and $16,000 in entertainment allowance...

"The Obama's made close to 5 million dollars last year."

Their 2007 tax return shows that the couple earned $4.2MM - and paid nearly $1.4MM in federal taxes, and made nearly a quarter-million dollars in charitable contributions.

As a family, they're comfortably well off - but hardly wealthy.

One might also note in reading the article that they're also not taking charitable donations for redecorating the White House or even a new custom-carpet in the Oval Office - They're largely making do with what already exists.

I think it would have very been bad form for Mr Obama to chastize CEOs for using Government Bailout funds on excessive bonuses and wasteful corporate spending on redecorating their private offices with $86,000 area rugs & such - then take government money for a new carpet and draperies for his Oval Office.

"Something tells me two head chefs is a little more costly than a living quarters redecoration or a vegetable garden offset."

How much does a chef earn - $75,000 a year?

That's equal to one new carpet for the Oval Office. (Bush II's carpet was $62,000 8 years ago)

This makes me happy

So when you're president, $4.2 million per year makes you "hardly wealthy," but under Obama's tax proposals and rhetoric, $250,000 is the starting point for "the wealthiest Americans," as he often puts it.

"Haven't we seen this Scottish gym here just a few days ago?"

Scottish?
It's from South Dakota...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/a-castle-at-the-white-house/

$100,000 barely covers Michael S Smith's fee for a small bedroom let alone an entire home, so yes, they are going to have to fork out some big bucks of their own (or lobbyists) for this project.

It doesn't matter who the sitting president is but he or she should have to pay for the redecdorating of his or her personal living quarters just like the rest of us do.

Interesting how this impresses so many, or makes people so happy. Obama knows this will have that effect on his faithful fans too- the same people that have no problem with his out of control, unprecedented spending of tax money. Who cares that he's putting us further in debt as well have putting the government in control of banks, auto companies, etc...since the government is always so efficient and successful in all it does...

But a little organic garden makes you giddy? where's your priorities? Care to look at the big picture or the future ahead of us? Sadly, infatuation seems to be quite blinding.

sorry, let's talk about design or something...

Bepsf,

The average American household makes $40-50,000 a year. I would consider double or triple that amount to be "comfortably well off" and 80 times that amount (which is the Obama's $4.2 million) to be quite wealthy. I guarantee that if most Americans were gifted with $4.2 million once in their lifetime, they'd think they'd died and gone to heaven.

As for the Obama's, whether it is a political move or genuine appreciation of monetary modesty and responsibility (and only a few people will ever really know which it is, so the debate on this point seems useless) it is still a commendable move.

Interesting. Once one person mis-pluralized "Obama's" no one else got it right.

"Are they planting any araucarias in the gardens?"

I don't know - Are they edible?

Nancy Reagan redecorated, and raised private monies to do so. Barbara Bush pretty much left things as is. The CLintons redid the place, and then took much of the furniture when they left. The Bushes redid stuff, as well.

Most occupants re-do the private living quarters and those public rooms that get a lot of wear and tear.

I think the swing set is duller than ditchwater, and wish they'd had a design competition or something.

I think it's a nice gesture and that's about it.

The swing set looks safe and isn't a primary-colored monstrosity. Sometimes adults seem to forget that what may be aesthetically displeasing to them may seem wonderful to children. I think any child seeing that thing would be thrilled.

I wish that swingset came in adult size. I would totally play on it every day.

As a family, they're comfortably well off - but hardly wealthy.

are you kidding me? i think rural america would disagree with that statement. i know i do.

Heh. Yeah, clearly, "wealthy" is relative. To me, 6 figures (not to mention 7) = pretty darn wealthy.

Is AT the New CNN? Can we just keep it as a design blog. Most people don't come here to hear about peoples individual political opinions.

I have to agree with Botany. This is a design blog and this article merely states that the Obamas will be paying for renovations of their private quarters out of pocket. I think that this is a good move in terms of public relations. With the economy in its current state and the recent AIG bonuses making the news, if I were President, I would have done the same thing.

$100,000 to redecorate is kind of a ridiculously large amount of money, but I think they could use like maybe $5,000 - $10,000, especially, if what previously existed was not their style. Like someone else said, they are kind of "stuck" living there for four years and then they can't really benefit from those upgrades like a regular homeowner would.

The president's salary is very low by DC standards for a person of his power. Some of the above commenters need to remember that this is not a cheap place to live. Our household income is close to $300K, but we do not feel "wealthy" in the least - we don't own a car or have cable tv because of the cost. $100,000 may go a very long way in some parts of the country, but certainly not here.

I second what DCdweller said -- a "lot of money" for middle America is not so much money in a city. I would call the Obamas wealthy, but not fantastically rich.