>> in terms of prosecuting the fraud that gave rise to this. appropriate regulation, but, simply, expanding the role of government in running the economy, and running, particular businesses, does nothing but distort the economy. >> where do we go from here? >> well, what i would like to see us do from here is to at least start stan. ching the damage, and stop running up the debt. unfortunately, neither this administration, nor the prior administration, takes that view. the national debt increased tremendously under george w. bush and it has increased tremendously the first year the

president has been in power. we need to reduce that, we need to start doing something -- we can't do it overnight, and i know some in my party, you know, would like to see these changes come, immediately, and you can't do that, you can't all of a sudden, say, well, there is going to be no more federal reserve or we'll do away with this or that department. but, you have to start the process, and get serious about it. if i'm -- i'm afraid if we don't do that within the next couple of years and i don't see that happening, i think it will become virtually impossible to reverse that trend, of ever increasing debt. and, you can sustain it for a while, but, frankly, i don't feel comfortable with china being our largest creditor nation, or brazil, being the second or third, whatever it is. i think this is going to come back in a number of ways, to haunt us, not just economically, but, in terms of reducing and limiting our options, in the international arena, when you are in debt to other nations,

that may have different ideas about how things operate in the world than we do. >> you are listening to the commonwealth club of radio program and our guest is bob barr. questions about the tea party. the tea parties and the tea party movement. and, how would the federalists feel about those and how does bob barr feel about those. >> i hand been to any of the events. i read about them and see them and know a lot of the folks involved and if, in fact, these movements, and i guess they are careful not to call themselves a party, republican party, would like to co-opt them and that is the greatest danger to the tea party movement, is being co-opted by the republican party and that seems to be a danger. if in fact, though, these movements are truly grassroots movements, to educate themselves

and their fellow citizens, as to what is going on, in washington, particularly, at the federal level, to educate people as to the real issues, to talk about the constitution, in a meaningful, substantive way, then, i think it is good, and i think our framers would agree with that. they had very serious concerns, and, if not disdain to some extent, with formal political parties so i think they would look at these movements, if, in fact they are positive oriented, if they are not out there talking about arming themselves, and, so forth, which i don't think is appropriate, i think it is very dangerous, and, some of them seem to be going in that direction, a bit, but if it is positive, if it is truly educational, to inform the citizenry, to activate the citizenry, to be involved, about these substantive issues, i think that is good. but, it is awfully early to tell. i don't know if it will really continue in that direction. >> a related question, what is

your opinion of sarah palin and her popularity. >> she seems to be fairly popular. [laughter]. >> what can i... yes, she's -- she's pretty popular. i never met her. i was not impressed with her during the campaign, two years ago. and, during the -- and during the debate, so-called, that she had with senator biden. i have not been impressed with her handling or articulation of issues, since then, either, but, she does seem to strike a cord with a lot of groups out there, which, maybe tell us the public understanding of discourse and shows us how much work we have to do. >> more questions about domestic issues. describe your stance on same sex marriage, and, another question, related, perhaps, to some of what we have been talking about. how do you reconcile an opinion on social issues, with the

desire for less government, for example, doesn't pro-choice, same sex marriage legality create less government in terms of the restrictions on people's lives? >> i'm not sure i followed all that. but, to me, marriage, first and foremost, is not a federal issue. the federal government should have no business in it. certainly, and i argued and testified, i believe, before the congress, four or five years ago, when the so-called federal marriage amendment was being debated, i think it would be terribly inappropriate for the federal government to get involved in that, i have called for -- even i was the primary author of the defense... defense of marriage act for its repeal how it is used to deny citizens of the various states the right to make their own districts with regard to same sex marriage. that ought to be up to the

individuals in particular states. and not to be the purview of the federal government, even indirectly as we allowed and is currently allowed under the defense of marriage act. >> question about the cia. i was surprised to hear you used to be affiliated with the cia, many consider the operations and even experiences, secretive intelligence agencies to be a major threat to liberty. how did your experience with the cia influence your views and do you think it is correct in keeping with the federalist papers and a free society? >> i won't see... if in fact we have a central intelligence agency such as it was many years ago, when i had the opportunity to work --tives in the 1970s, whose primary focus is to gather information, both covert and open information, on what is going on in the world, and, to analyze that, and present that, and disseminate that to our policy leaders, and not only do

i think that is not a threat or a danger to society, it carries out an absolute obligation and responsibility our government has to know what is going on in the world, and to equip our policymakers, with the best and most current information. unfortunately, what has happened, particularly, in recent years, particularly, under the prior administration, is the agency which unfortunately has drifted ever since to some extent, ever since the demise of the soviet union, which was its primary focus for two generations, it has drifted. it has not been driven clear direction and directive and has not taken the initiative in providing it for itself and allowed itself to become used in ways that i think are highly inappropriate and counterproductive. and i would like to see -- and i hope the current administration follows through on some of its initial policies, to hold the

agency more accountable. but, not to do away with its core mission. i think, gathering intelligence information, with regard to foreign nations, foreign leaders, going on in the world is essential, and i would like to see whoever occupies the white house, pay closer attention, and, use that intelligence, for purposes for which it is intended, that is to allow them to make better, more important decisions, rather than some of the ways that it has been used by the prior administration. >> thank you. question about the federalists and how they would view today's movement for green energy. how they would view the government getting very involved and encouraging and in some cases mandating people to practice certain energy saving policies? >> i think there are -- the federalists, they understood human nature a little bit better than our leaders in washington and at the state levels do

nowadays, i was reading on the flight out here today, an article describing efforts by the government leaders in boulder, colorado, to make their community greener, and, they take these steps to provide incentives, and to provide money for people, to make their houses greener, you know, by putting light bulbs in, that you can hardly see with and so forth and that was my editorializing. and they believe otherwise, and, they found over the last few years according to the articles, it doesn't work and people are resistant to being forced to do those sorts of things. well, then, what government does, and i think, the federalists, would understand this, what government nowadays does, is if they provide those incentives, and, the citizenry doesn't embrace them, and do exactly what the government leaders want, then, those

government leaders don't say, well, gee, maybe we did the wrong thing and back off and they say, we didn't go far enough and they try additional incentives and additional mandates and so forth. and it doesn't work. if in fact there is an economic... using energy to freely... let the market take care of that. that is, that is certainly what i believe, what we as libertarians believe and what i think to a large extent, the federalists would believe, they understood the market. they understood that government should not and ultimately cannot, other than through force of government power, and the threat of jail, force people to do things. they'll do it if there is a proper incentive through their social structure and through the marketing -- market economy to do that. if in georgia, for example, in my home state, for three years before last year, we had a very

serious drought, so, the -- we had sear yaws water shortages. to me if the supply of water goes down because the supply of rain is going down, you increase the price, the price should go up. well, government doesn't want to do that. they think that might hurt people or whatnot or be unfair. so, what they did is they instituted mandatory water restrictions. to me, it would have made a lot more sense to let the market take care of that. and, if people want to pay more to use more water and can afford it, fine but sooner or later they will not be able to and it will balance out. >> thank you. quick question about your movie career. you were in the movie "borat". >> for which, by the way, i received no royalties, it is really -- really irritates me. >> and an oversight that maybe can be corrected today!

what do you think the fact that you were in it, says about politicians, or people in political life, and the way they are viewed by the public? >> well, i'm not sure. let me give you a little back ground, how i got roped into that, in my own defense. we have received at my office in atlanta, probably about a year-and-a-half or maybe two years before the movie came out, we received a request in the normal course of events, for a foreign journalist, somebody described is a foreign journalist coming to atlanta and wanting to interview me on matters involving the patriot act and the constitution. and so forth, issues that i at least, at that time, was in the news a fair amount about and we were trying to reauthorize -- not reauthorize the patriot act and so forth and on the surface it made sense, got this guy coming over and wants to interview you on these things, and, we checked it out, and, it seemed appropriate, obviously we didn't check it out quite

enough... but he did nominal due diligence, it seemed appropriate and we made arrangements for when i was coming up to washington, and, an office i have there at the time, to do the interview the rest of history and it started out as a legitimate interview and deteriorated rapidly and we threw the guy out of the office. so, in my own defense, i didn't say anything stupid, i didn't say anything. but some of the individuals -- i'm not saying i comported myself perfectly but some things they said were pretty stupid and just i think, feeds into the public's perception of the locale blo low caliber of public officials we have these days. i think the guy is a tremendous comedian and has a tremendous comedic sense, that movie and the successor one, pushed the envelope too far but up to a

point i thought it was fairly funny. >> this leads -- time for one last question and here it is: do you think you will run again for president, in 2012? and, do you think a libertarian party candidate can ever win? >> no and yes. i do not intend to run again. i enjoyed the experience, tremendously of running in 2008. with the banner of a libertarian party. but i have no intention of running again. do i think that a libertarian could ever be elected? yes. but, an awful lot of things will have to happen before that is even remotely likely. and our political system is so stacked against the openness that would be necessary for a third-party candidate, or a libertarian or otherwise to stand a real chance at competing, before you go in,

just competing, it is so difficult with the current restrictions, in -- federal campaign financing for a third party or an independent to raise money, to compete, it is virtually impossible to break into the media, as we saw during the debates. they will not allow it. that will have to change, and our campaign laws will have to be opened up, and the citizenry is going to have to demand that we open up our political system and have a real damn debate about these things, instead of listening to, republicans and democrats, take the opportunity, of rung for president and having the forum and simply saying what they want, rather than what we need to hear and ultimately the answer to your last question, yes, it is possible but will open if the american people demand to have a real political system at long last.

>> our thanks to bob barr, former u.s. congressman and former libertarian candidate for president or joining us today. [applause]. >> we also thank our audience here and on radio, television and the internet. this meeting of the commonwealth club of california, the place where you are in the know, is adjourned. >> thank you very much. >> enjoyed that. great program. please come back again. >> excellent questions. probably got only to 10%. >> got -- good audience there. >> enjoyed it. thank you. we'll do it again. thank you very much.

>> the minute it that the wall street firms were in the business of harvesting middle class and lower middle class americans for their home equity value, and making loans to them against it, there was a natural risk of abuse.

>> former president jimmy carter and former senator howard baker recently took part in a forum discussing how bipartisanship can be fostered in the current political climate. from the jimmy carter presidential library in atlanta, this is about 40 minutes. good morning everybody i want to welcome you here. please join me in welcoming jay

hakes, and president and mrs. jimmy carter and our special guest, senator howard baker. [applause] [applause]. >> [inaudible] [laughter]

>> as tony said i'm jay hakes the director of the carter presidential library and would like to welcome you here today, our topic is one that seems to have captured the public interest. it is bipartisanship. in the 1970s, and bipartisanship today. and, we could not have a better panel to discuss that topic as i think you will all agree. i will start with the person whose name is on the building...

[laughter]. >> president jimmy carter, and the 39th president of the u.s. and, also, the founder along with his wife, rosalynn of the carter center. we will get into that presidency in considerably depth as we move through the program this morning. our guest today is senator howard baker, former senator of tennessee, republican minority leader, majority leader in the senate, chief of staff to president reagan, but, also, perhaps, even more important than all of that, a great photographer. [laughter]. >> and, i had seen some of senator baker's photographs up at the baker center for public policy, at the university of tennessee which i would recommend all of you visiting and you will see a great collection of photographs, so when the baker-donaldson law firm called and said we'd be interested in showing senator baker's pictures in your museum we jumped at the chance and i know president carter was very

excited about it and you will see that this is a journey well worth making to see those photographs. and we hope you will take advantage of that. i normally was not planning to recognize people in the audience, because it is a very distinguished audience across the board but first lady rosalynn carter is with us today and georgia senator david gambrelle is with us today and a special privilege, nicholas bar leta, the former president of panama is with us today, and we're very happy to have him with us. [applause]. >> so let's get to the topic and talk about bipartisanship and we'll talk with the 19 0s and people think we will have nothing to talk about if we talk about bipartisanship today. but going back to 1977, both gentleman here were sport of new to their office. senator baker had been elected by the republican caucus, to

head the party in the senate, and it was a close vote. i think you would agree. >> [inaudible]. >> yes. [laughter]. >> and, president carter, running as an outsider from washington came on like gangbusters... >> another close vote. >> close vote and you must have come to washington with certain expectations, about how you wer going to deal with the other party, and, so i wonder if you with like to share, when you arrived at washington or arrived as the party leader, what you were expecting from the other party. >> one of my main commitments during the campaign was what i had done as governor and that was the -- reorganize the government and so i drafted a reorganization bill and when i met with the democratic caucus i couldn't get a single democratic member of the house of representatives to introduce my bill. so the first thing i did when i was president was turn to the republicans, who felt like i did, that the government ought to be more efficient and that is the way i started my

administration, was depending on republicans to help me and, i was pleasantly surprised in the future months, at how this original problem evolved into one of my biggest blessings. >> how did it look from your perspective. >> well, certainly i agree with president carter. that was the high point of his early career and i do remember, vividly, the effort to do that. let me wax philosophical for a moment, mr. president. i dad was in congress a long time ago. and i really, really took to heart the lessons that he tried to teach me. but the one that stands out most prominently is he told me once, and i was a young man, i was a teen, i guess, that in politics, capation for idea-- competition

right to serve is political but must be accompanied by a decent respect for the other fellow's points of view because if you don't do that the whole system falls and collapses, if you don't admit the other person may be right from time-to-time and sometimes it is hard to take and difficult to understand, but, it is absolutely essential. and, the high points of my career at least, in the congress, and i believe in his career, it was marked by the willingness, either publicly or privately, to recognize that we need to think about something else except those things we are particularly interested in. that is the essence of politics and, in my view of the essence of bipartisanship. i have -- i'm not one who believes that bipartisanship is always the right thing. as i said, a minute ago, partisanship is the way we test ideas.

but, partisanship must not be so arbitrary, and so firm that you never admit other ideas and don't at least listen to another fellow's point of view. >> it was that philosophy of howard baker that existed 30 years ago, that helped to make my administration successful. in dealing with some of the more controversial issues of the time, and, the kind of courageous leadership that howard baker showed as the minority leader we had a majority democrats in the house and senate then. was crucial. and, it is very important to remember how courageous it was even then to go out on a limb sometimes for supporting the policies of democratic -- a democratic president, and, he did. i remember one time that we met in the white house with him and

his wife, and, i thanked him for voting right and he said, mr. president, if i vote right one more time i will not be reelected in ten nas. [laughter]. >> but he did it and i would say, and -- a historical note -- the most courageous vote in my opinion, in the history of the u.s. congress, was the affirmative vote in the senate for the approval of ratification of the panama canal treaties. it was a very... [applause]. >>... difficult vote. and, there were 20 senators who voted for the treaties. who were up for re-election in 1978. only 7 of them came back to the senate the next year. and, the attrition rate was almost as great in 1980.

and i would say, i'm getting ahead of time, perhaps, but, when howard baker later ran for president, and sought the republican nomination, i think that his support of the panama canal treaties was one of the negative factors that kept him from being the nominee and, programs, the president of the united states. so i want to thank him partly for being so courageous, in a time when it was not easy. >> mr. president, i thank you very much. anyone who wants to see my scars and bruise, i'll show them to you. [laughter]. >> but it was not easy, but, not to be unduly grand about it, it was the right thing to do. and maybe i ought to share with you a little about how i arrived at that conclusion. because i don't know if i said, this publicly but when it came up, those who advised me as minority leader were pretty well divided on whether i should do it or not do it.

and, what i did was put together a group of academics, principally, to study the matter and give me advice on what to do. well, as most academics do, forgive me any academics in this room but as they usually do they studied it and all the contact with a recommendation on the one hand and, on the other hand... which didn't help a lot and as a result of that i made a decision and you may remember jimmie canon my chief of staff and before that was... and jim helped with that, not with the substance but with the courage to do it. he said repeatedly, if you really think that is the thing to do, do it. and i did. and i planned, it was the right thing to do, even though it may have negatively impac m