split, 6-6 along party lines. they'll have until thanksgiving to come up with a package of cuts and/or taxes to get the $1.5 trillion. now, congress would then vote up or down on the entire chunk. they have to vote. but remember, the supercommittee was set up to do what congress and the white house failed to do. keeping them honest tonight, it's not like this is the first time politicians have decided to set up a committee to do what they themselves have failed to do. in targets we have all been to this rodeo before. >> this commission has given us a warning for the future. but you have also presented us with a program for action. >> that was ronald reagan back in 1984 talking about a commission which was set up -- which was called for back in 1982. so we have heard this time and time again from politicians. and it wasn't just starting with ronald reagan. it goes back -- well, it's happened a lot even since then. take a look. >> from now on when the public hears the name gramm, rudman or hollings they'll think deficit reductions. >> maybe not because congress managed to find ways around the spending limits. the supreme court struck down parts of it and the deficit grew. since then there have been nearly a dozen commissions, a dozen commissions and committees, set up to deal with deficits, government spending, taxes, entitlements. four within the last year alone including the one headed by former gop senatorial lab simpson and ex clinton chief of staff irs kin bowles. politicians were lining up to praise that commission or compare it to their own plans. >> it's modelled after the bipartisan simpson bowles proposal. >> the proposal exactly along the lines of what the simpson bowles commission. >> along the lines that simpson bowles talked about. >> a lot of the components of bowles simpson. a lot of voices from participants in the bowles simpson. >> borrows from the framework of the bipartisan simpson bowles proposal. >> simpson bowles. >> the bowles simpson commission. >> simpson bowles commission. >> the simpson bowles commission did that. why can't they? >> everyone was talking about the commission that heralded the arrival of the recommendations of the commission. but unfortunately, the simpson bol commission couldn't actually agree on a final set of recommendations. however, to be fair, the new supercommittee may have a better chance. that's because if it can't agree, this new supercommittee, if they can't agree on that 1.5 trillion in debt reductions, the new law call for $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts designed to be painful for both sides. on the other hand, one or both side may try to stack the deck with committee members who simply will not compromise. house speaker boehner says he won't approve anyone who'll even consider raising taxes. wall street -- dow plunged 2865 points today. the only bright spot is moody's which had threaten today downgrade america's credit rating keeping it steady at aaa. that may change if the new supercommittee lays an egg. i talked with gloria borger and john king. >> so john, what makes this committee any different from all the other panels that have come before them? does the process actually have some teeth this time? >> it does have some teeth. there are a lot of skeptics about this committee. but this committee has a deadline. it has to report to congress by thanksgiving. then congress cannot say oh, i don't like, this i don't like that. you can't have another debate about amendments. like the old base closing commissions when they wanted to close a military base. you have a committee, it comes up with a plan. congress gets to vote yes or no, up or down. if this committee collapses, i won't get into all the details of this agreement, but there are automatic spending cuts that could take place. there's a whole debate about whether then congress would have to pass a balanced budget amendment and send it out to the states. but the threat of mandatory cuts, a trigger that says we're going to cut defense, social security, that is the sword over the head of this committee if you will. it has to come up with a package that equals $1.5 trillion. it could do more than that, aernz arnz. that's the floor. it could go higher. >> gloria to john's point, congress has try this. ed to put some kind of triggers in before, haven't they? >> sure. >> and they find a way to kind of get around their own rules. >> and they can find ways. they can always find ways to get around the rules. and i think that's the problem. that's why a lot of people are skeptical who have been in washington for some time, because they know that you can always do that. i was talking with a senior administration official who was skeptical about it. and he said to me, look, there are those who believe that threat of these cuts will cause some outbreak of reasoning around here. why would that happen? so we really don't know. it's very uncertain, i think. >> i mean, john, you look at the last committee where the simpson bowles, i kept hearing for months from politicians, from president obama and others saying, well, you know, we've got this deficit-cutting commission that as soon as they put in their report then we're going to act on that stuff. and it comes and everyone -- it makes a headline for a day and then people move on. >> the difference is that committee or those reports from the simpson bowles commission, that was the president's commission. but if you didn't have a spar majority congress wasn't required to vote on it. this plan congress will be required to vote on. that is what makes it different. if they have recommendations they give them to the congress, they have to vote up or down. they have no choice. so you can't take the simpson bowles commission and say, i like items 1, 2, 3 and 4 but no way on items 6 or 8. this one will be hear it is. eat your peas like it or not. yes or not. >> and i guess a lot depend, john, on who is sitting on the panel, right? >> that is the magical question. and gloria has been tracking this all day. i've been tracking this all day. i asked the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell today are members volunteering or are they running away? look, we know there are some members who are committed to some politically painful things. they're willing to put social security and medicare on the table. we know there are members going to the leadership on the republican side saying appoint me. i will fight to the death no new taxes. on the democratic side, appoint me. i will fight to the death. no touching social security or medicare. so the question is, who do the leaders decide to appoint? do they appoint people with an open mind, or do they appoint people who are already dug? ? >> and the question that i have is that, is it a good political move for you if you're a member of congress to actually be on this committee? because you don't know what the results are going to be, and it could be politically bad for you at home. there are some, anderson, who have suggested to me someone inside the administration who said, why not put those gang of six on the committee because they're the only ones who have come up with actually a bipartisan way to approach the deficit. so we'll see if some of those folks get on it. >> how much of a voice do you guys think that tea party may have or not have on this panel? >> that was one of the questions. >> i think a lot. >> i try this. ed to get leader mcconnell to answer. they will have influence because they have sway on the house side on speaker boehner. they have sway on the senate side to a lesser degree. but they're the new member os of the senate. so i was asking for example jim da mint the hero of the tea party in the senate, the new members like rand paul or mike leechlt what if one of them comes forward and says we need to be represented on the committee. you do have to consult people. that's one of their issues here. we have this supercommittee that has awesome powers, anderson. before we get to the committee there's going to be a huge debate about who gets to get on it. within each party you'll have the internal politics play out. then we'll have the committee and we'll have a lot of what we've seen over the past few weeks play out. >> john, gloria fascinating. thank you whatever the supercommittee ends up looking like, cnn orc polling reveals americans aren't exactly crazy about the entire process. 44% approve of the deal, 52% don't. but only 17% believe elected officials acted like responsible adults throughout the negotiating and lawmaking. 77% say they acted like spoiled children by about a 2 to 1 margin. people approved of the spending cuts included in the debt ceiling even those actual items have not been named. 65% -- the law does not mandate tax increases or reductions. paul, you were part of the white house team that saw some balanced budget. what do you think? can this work actually approach? will this approach work? >> i don't know if it will but it can. i'm perhaps a little more bullish on it than you are. the gramm rodman hol links president that senator reagan signed in 1985. it put real triggers in and congress did respond to that. we all remember 1990 when george bush sr., george h.w. bush, broke his read my lips no new taxes pledge. he raised income taxes, gas taxes, medicare taxes. he did that because the gramm rudman hollings law was going to force very deep cuts in defense. he decided he'd rather have the tax increases than slash national defense. it has worked. i wouldn't say it has a stellar record. but i think it's certainly better than nothing. >> you don't think they'll be able to come up with some ways down the road to avoid voting or to overcome this kind of what seems to be automatic trigger? >> if this is passed by this congress binding this congress. so it's not like this is a commission that meets 10 or 20 years down the line. here's what we need. maybe if we had somebody every night who's keeping them honest. the whole country is watching and they are going to have to act on this. the i think the panel's right let's watch and see who they put on. >> ari, do republicans on this panel need to consider raising taxes if they're serious about balancing the budget? >> well, i think republicans do need to consider loophole closures. i think there are some things in the tax code that can and should be cleaned up. i don't think they should support income tax rate increases. i don't think that would be good for the economy and it's not what republican believe so it won't happen. but i am optimistic about this. people are making too much of commission commission we've heard it all before. this is really -- if you pretend the senate and the house passed a bill and it goes to a conference committee, that's what really this is. this has short circuited the legislative process to create a conference committee that takes the house, senate, puts it together in one package and then the house and senate have to vote yea or nay, up or down. unlike commissions of the past which include people people who are not members of congress, this is all members of congress. it's actually a smart way to go about this. there surely is a big sword hanging over their head. they know if they don't get this done the tea party is breathing down their throat. they'll put the pressure on. their voices will be heard. two, medicare and the pentagon are going to get cut. so those are pretty good incentives for action to be taken. and you do get the sense that there's a different mood in washington. the appropriation bills were settled with a big spending cut for the first time ever we have a debt limit increase that was attached with dollar for dollar bigger cuts than the debt limit was increased. this is a different year in washington. so i'm optimistic. >> i'm about to tweet out that you guys actually agree. i'm expecting you guy to break out singing kumbaya in a pro. this is extraordinary. i've got to take a quick break to collect my thoughts on this. we'll have you both on right after break so stick around. talk more about where this all leaves president obama and future presidents as well as the issue no one was talking about for weeks. make a big difference next november, jobs. we're on facebook. follow me on there or on twitter @ anderson cooper stomach turning day in the warren jeffs trial. his voice instructing his female followers how to have sex with him. and all the while, jeffs defending himself loudly objecting in the courtroom. they basically ignored him. we'll have a live report. isha sesay is following other stories for us tonight. >> reporter: the growing violence syria, the regime is cracking down hard. especially in the city of hama where the u.n. estimates nearly 150 people have been killed since friday. we'll have the latest on the escalating bloodshed. and you'll hear from an activist who's right in the middle of it. that and much more when 360 [ bell tolls ] agents, these crustaceans are like gold to a restaurant owner. so? water damage can spell disaster for a small business. and restaurants have over 4 million slip and falls every year. that's why we work with our clients and help them find coverage for stuff like this. oh! hey, what are you going to do with these guys? we'll release them into the wild so they can live long, fulfilling lives. aw, really? no. [ male announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers ♪ bum, ba-da-bum, bum, bum, bum ♪ critics on both sides of the aisle have talked about how unnecessary and self-ininflicted this was. after the bill passed the politicos were talking. >> the number one job we have as a congress must be creating jobs for the american people. >> republicans have never taken our eye off of job creation. >> but it's now time for congress to get back to our regularly-scheduled programming, and that means jobs. >> i'll continue also to fight for what the american people care most about, new jobs, higher wages, and faster economic growth. >> we'll see how long their focus will stay on jobs or how effective their focus will be, especially the debt committee keeps making news. back with us is paul begala and ari fleischer. how ugly could this get? >> we can't even imagine. not only will they be lobbied they're going to be covered by the press. it will be huge tension between those of us in the media who want transparency. will they broadcast all their meetings? and people who want a deal because frankly deals are usually made behind closed doors. that's how we got the declaration of independence, after all. that was closed press. that's going to be a really tough one. but it's not just the lobbyists, it's the activists. the tea party has interjected a lot of nooen our politics. sometimes some of the fringe, just on the fringe have been a little fright tong me. but you could see, i don't want to suggest but you could see the sort of activism we saw during the healthcare debate up. which in the main was very healthy but there was a fringe there scarey. >> ari, do you see the tea party having a seat at the table on this commission? >> i hope. so i think the tea party deserves it. i think they're the ones who have made this whole debate and this whole fact now that we're actually trying to cut spending in washington a reality. i looked at the numbers, anderson. 68% of all house republican freshmen voted for this boehner obama compromise agreement. only 50% of the democrats did. so what we really have here is a group that came to washington to make big change, but they're also going about it in what i think is a pretty reasonable way. more reasonable than if you look the a the numbers the democrats wanted to even agree with their own president on this one but house republican freshmen were more willing to do. so so i think they deserve it. i also just have to remind everybody that debt limit always was increased with nothing attached to it until this year. this is really a change in washington. that's why i think when senator mcconnell says this is a new way we are going to do business, we'll never again raise a debt limit without spending cuts, it's what we need. the other reason we need it is because even under all best circumstances, assuming no further recessions, under the budget the president proposed to the congress this year, the debt goes up to $20 trillion by 2020. so because of the aging baby boomers and because of all the spending we have, we still have huge debt problems we have yet to face. it's going to take a lot of strong medicine to help us all, both parties, face those problems. >> paul, ari mentioned something that mitch mcconnell said. i want to play something that he said similar to what ari said. but let's just play that for our viewers. >> what we have done also is set a new template. in the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling it will not be clean anymore. >> paul, moving forward for debates in the future, now that this bill has been signed, the kind of the drama of it has kind of worn down, what's the take away from this? what does this mean moving forward for debates in the future, for the tenor of debates in the future and for the president? >> well, in for tactics in these showdowns, i think senator mcconnell told the truth. i think ari is right. i think it's a monstrous thing. >> monstrous? >> monstrous because the full faith of credit of the united states of america has been preserved even through the civil war, even through the great depression. there should be some things that are tab books that are off-limits. there's only one tiny correction. gramm rudman hollings actually was tagged onto a debt limit increase under ronald reagan. fleischer, this will kill you, it was $2 billion. now we just raised it $2 trillion. once in a very, very blue moon, only one other time in history that i saw has the debt limit been used. even then nobody was threatening to renege, to default on the full faith and credit of the united states. this is a recipe for mischief. it will continue to work until it doesn't. in other words, until finally somebody pushes us into default. and that's going to tax every single american. it could be catastrophic. >> anderson, i've been very public about saying that anybody who wants to default this nation is making a big mistake, they're they're wrong to think we can do that and it won't have terrible consequences. it will. but people are also wrong to think we should just keep raising the debt limit and keep on spending. that's why we keep having to raise a debt limit. so if a limit is going to actually have any meaning and be a limit, you have to take it seriously. you don't keep raising it every time it comes up. that's what's gotten us into the big hole that we're. in that's why i think as messy as this system was to get to where we are, it achieved a good result. we stopped just raising the debt limit willy nil yichlt now there's a price to be paid. cuts have to be made. that's the only way debt limits get increased further. it would be nice to go back to the days when we didn't have to do it if we can get to that point by putting together more agreements, democrats and republicans. the president is going to have to show leadership to really take on entitlement spending. >> i would hayes ton add the president i served balanced the budget and put us of a glide path to zero national debt. the president mr. fleischer exploded the mess that mr. obama inherited. but there should not be a debt limit at all. the founding fathers didn't put it in the constitution for a reason. congress already voted for this debt. this is what's different. the question is only whether we pay it. it's an artificial construct that has handed a very, very potentially damaging weapon to potential political extremists. >> paul is as usual -- paul's half right. president obama -- his policies made