MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, what the budget crisis could mean for much maligned and often misunderstood farm subsidies.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIBut first, a tentative agreement to extend the debt ceiling and reduce government spending passed the House yesterday and passed the Senate today. The deal would avert a self-inflicted crisis predicted to begin today when Treasury officials say they won't have enough money to pay the nation's bills.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIThe agreement would trim more than $2 trillion from the federal budget over the next 10 years and set up a bipartisan committee to suggest another $1 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving. Handing off tough decisions to special joint committees or commissions is not new but it isn't always successful either.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIIf Congress as a whole can't agree on how to wrestle down the deficit why should we think a smaller subset will be able to do so? Joining us in studio to talk about the history and possibilities of this smaller subset is Sarah Binder, professor of Political Science at George Washington University and a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. Sarah Binder, thank you so much for joining us.

MS. SARAH BINDERGreat. Thanks for having me.

NNAMDIThe debt ceiling calls for the creation of a super committee to recommend a deficit reduction plan by November 23rd. Who would choose the committee members and how important is it that they be willing to compromise and cross party lines?

BINDERWell, the bill that's about to be signed into law, presumably this afternoon, sets out very clearly the parameters of the committee. So there'll be three House Republicans, three House Democrats and then three Democrats from the Senate, three from the Republicans.

BINDERAnd the law stipulates that the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate and the Speaker and the minority leader in the House will have those choices. It sets a deadline, two weeks, in order to set those delegations up, to get the committee up and running.

BINDERAnd, of course, it sets a strict deadline for that committee to report at the end of November before Thanksgiving and then for Congress to act on its recommendations at the end of December, before Christmas.

BINDERNow, I think there's a lot riding, for starters, on who gets appointed to the committee...

NNAMDICan the leaders simply appoint themselves to the committee?

BINDERWell, there's some suspicion that they might, in fact, do that. My hunch is it's more likely to be one of their deputies, just so that they can retain a little bit of distance from the decisions being made on that committee.

NNAMDIAnd how important is that they be willing to compromise across party lines?

BINDERWell, here's the issue. The way the committee was set up, if the committee fails to reach agreement, and by agreement we mean a bipartisanship, by which we mean at least seven members, a majority vote of the committee.

BINDERIf the committee deadlocks or if one chamber or the president rejects the compromise, the deal reached by the committee, then the law says there are triggers. There'll be automatic spending cuts for defense, half for defense and half for domestic spending and for Medicare entitlements.

BINDERSo it depends on how draconian one thinks these automatic cuts are going to be. And the expectation is, Democrats fear Medicare cuts and Republicans fear defense cuts. That's at least the expectation, that's to encourage them to work together.

NNAMDIWhat is the history of that kind of draconian choice, say about making this committee more or less likely to reach an agreement?

BINDERWell, Congress does not have a great track record with creating successful commissions...

NNAMDIYes, give us a few examples of committees or commissions that managed to achieve their missions and ones that didn't but before we do that let me invite telephone calls. 800-433-8850. How do you feel about the idea of a super committee that would recommend more spending cuts or is that a job you think Congress as a whole should be undertaking?

NNAMDI800-433-8850 or go to our website, kojoshow.org. Join the conversation there, send us a tweet @kojoshow or e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. The history of these committees or commissions and how well they have worked?

BINDERSo with a (word?) that in many ways it's apples and oranges because these commissions and committees are so different in terms of their legislative authority, how they're set up, what procedural protections they're given, when and if they can report. Do they need a super majority to report, a majority to report and so forth.

BINDERThat aside, right, the successful one, I think by most accounts, is defense, military base closing commission. First...

NNAMDIBRAC.

BINDERBRAC. First established, as we all know in the Washington area, right, first established in the mid -- late 1980s and then reoccurring through the 1990s until it fell apart during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Set that aside, it was quite successful in part because Congress truly delegated decision making to an external commission that drew up a list of bases to be closed.

BINDERIf the president signed off on that list, those changes went into effect. All Congress could do was vote to disapprove them. It didn't rely on Congress' approval and, of course, the members of the commission weren't members of Congress and so it was much easier for members to sort of claim blame avoidance, it's not my fault.

NNAMDIThe BRAC or Base Realignment and Closure Commission, but here's a caveat because apparently, the closures were recommended in about 80 congressional districts and if only 80 House members are affected, how do you muster a majority to disapprove?

BINDERWell, that's precisely what the framers of the BRAC commission thought in the first place, which incidentally, was Dick Armey, now the head of the Tea Party Express. But at the time, he was instrumental in driving this solution.

BINDERI worked for a member of Congress at the time, whose district was on the list of having a base closing and rest assured, no matter -- he was a great deficit hawk, it was Lee Hamilton, he's sort of our standard bearer of great Congressional citizenship...

NNAMDICorrect.

BINDER...and we fought tooth and nail to keep -- to build that majority coalition, knowing we weren't going to succeed.

NNAMDILee Hamilton is also like the permanent commission member. He's on every commission about everything at this point.

BINDER(laugh) For sure.

NNAMDIYou can join this conversation, we said, at 800-433-8850. It's a conversation with Sarah Binder, she is a professor of political science at George Washington -- George Washington University and a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution.

NNAMDIIt's a conversation about Congress and the use of so-called of super committees. Do you think Congress has done a good job of averting a debt crisis? 800-433-8850. Sarah Binder, on the one hand, Congress has eased the fears of the rating agencies and the nation by reaching this agreement on the debt ceiling.

NNAMDIOn the other hand, the plan relies on a committee to do what could be the hardest part of the deficit trimming. How does the committee component of this deal affect the public's perceptions about Congress' ability to make tough choices?

BINDERWell, that, I think, is the key question that's been asked about this joint committee and whether it is, in fact, an improvement over what we've seen about the process that really doesn't work terribly well, right. On the one hand, the committee has some things going for it. Which is that if it reaches a deal, its decisions are protected from filibuster, both from Republicans, both from...

NNAMDIStraight up or down vote, no amendments.

BINDERStraight up or down vote. And in the House, it's protected from the machinations of the House Rules Committee, which is really an arm of the majority leadership. So the guaranteeing of an up or down vote, I think, is critical to making this more successful than past commissions. And of course, they're members themselves who have a stake in presumably solving the problem.

BINDERNow, as you said, the downside here, right, all the conflict, all that partisanship and ideological conflict that led to the stalemate over the debt limit in the first place, of course that gets replicated on that mini, mini committee here. And that's what I think has many, many observers worried.

NNAMDIIndeed, as I mentioned to you before the show, I heard a member of Congress yesterday say, there are going to be six of them and six of us. What's the difference between that and what we have here now? Here is Steve, Gaithersburg, Md. Steve, you're on the air, go ahead, please.

STEVEOkay. Thanks for taking the call, Kojo. Basically strikes me that Obama has dropped the ball in the following sense, if the committee fails, which it well might, we'll get more cuts and no taxes and at this point, we have no taxes in the first place. Any thoughts or comments on that?

NNAMDINo revenue stream if this committee fails.

BINDERWell, I think you're right to put your finger on a particular view that many Democrats have held here. I do think it's important to keep in mind that we ended up with this particular deal because the consequences of stalemate here are far more dire than as usual.

BINDERRight, usually if Congress fails, you know, the world goes on (laugh). People may not have immigration rights, they may not have healthcare, but the world, in some sense, goes on. Failure to reach a decision here really, really put the onus on the Democrats really to cave, right, and to accept a deal that was far from their ideal policy outcome.

NNAMDIThat had revenue stream whatsoever. Steve, thank you very much for your call. But we've heard a lot lately about the role of an impending crisis and motivating Congress to reach agreement, which is what happened in this situation. Without the threat of a major government default, where will this committee find its motivation to compromise?

BINDERWell, in theory, the law to be sets these triggers and that's supposed to be the sword over the heads of these members of the committee.

NNAMDIThe draconian budget cuts.

BINDERFor sure. And subject...

NNAMDIAcross the board.

BINDERAcross the board and evenly balanced between defense and domestic and the Medicare spending cuts, which I think should change -- make people pay attention to the committee and to think hard about whether there's a more acceptable solution.

NNAMDIOn to the telephones again. Here is Ken in North Potomac, Md. Ken, your turn.

KENHi, thank you. My point is exactly about this sword that you say is hanging over people's heads. The problem is that the sword is hanging over the head of the public and not over the heads of the members of Congress.

KENAnd it seems incredulous -- incredible to me that what we've set up is that -- basically they're saying if we can't do our jobs, you, the public, is going to suffer. How about something -- this is kind of crazy, but along the lines of, if we can't do our jobs, we suffer. We get thrown out or the money comes out of our paychecks and our staffs.

NNAMDIWell, Ken, I guess the problem with that is that the throwing out has to be done by you. (laugh) That's your decision, but here is Sarah Binder.

BINDERWell, I think it's -- I do think it's important to think creatively about solutions here and I -- you have to give Congress some credit for thinking a little bit, right.

BINDERWe're used to them kicking the can down the road. At least this time the can might explode if they fail and I think that's worth a little bit, even if they're not up to the alternative measures that you're proposing.

NNAMDIThank you very much for your call, David (sic). We move on to Sarah, in Reston, Va. Sarah, you're on with your namesake. Go ahead, please.

SARAHHi, I have a quick question about the group of six or the gang of six, that President Obama had already formed.

NNAMDIYes.

SARAHAnd I was just a little -- I'm confused and I've been frustrated through this whole process that there was bipartisan deal and there were measures laid out on the table already. Why are we repeating history in forming another group to be basically do nothing, it seems?

NNAMDI'Cause that was Obama's group. This is the Congress's group, but go ahead, please, Sarah Binder.

BINDERSo that gang of six is really a homegrown effort, all right. It's like other gangs in the Senate, it emerges because many Senators frustrations with the way the Senate works. And so I think you're right, in some ways, to say, look, I mean, they produced a plan or at least the outlines of a plan.

NNAMDIThey certainly did.

BINDERWhy are we doing it again? One can only hope that that provides some form of blueprint. But keep in mind, we don't know whether that plan would've passed, presumably it would not have passed the House, necessarily, and so I think the ground is still fertile here for reaching that type of decision.

NNAMDIBut Sarah's question does raise this issue. Some people have called joint committees a cowardly way to make important policy. What are the politics of setting up a bipartisan committee? How does a committee process like this one give legislators cover to vote for unpopular policies?

BINDERWell, I've been puzzling (laugh) over that precise question, right, because when they set up a commission, an external commission, it's clearly blame avoidance. But in this case, right, members own -- they're electorally countable for the decisions, both they make in the committee, as well as the decisions that they -- that they're -- put the -- the choice that they're putting up to their fellow members on the House and Senate floors.

BINDEROf course, we don't know which way that cuts. Does that encourage (laugh) them to make tough decisions under the guise that it's up or down, they can't amend it? Or, in fact, does that encourage them to simply buck the blame again and just go for the draconian triggers? I think we still don't know.

NNAMDIOne more call, thank you for yours, Sarah. Mike in Alexandria, Va. Mike, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

MIKEYes, hi. My question's actually pretty simple. There's a lot of low hanging fruit, such as tax loop holes and tax breaks and taxing of overseas earnings. There are a lot of companies who are willing to bring that back. So why don't we go after the low hanging fruit rather than have this commission look at much more complicated things? And it strikes me as a little odd that folks are not focusing on money that could come in, relatively easily, without it creating a lot of ideological problems that we're currently seeing around the hill.

NNAMDISarah Binder?

BINDERWell, that's a great question. And depending on the makeup of this committee, that might be precisely where they go, right. What you call, the low hanging fruit here. It gets complicated, though, because it affects revenues and revenue ceilings and so forth and what counts as increasing taxes and, of course, it opens a whole can of worms, particularly for house republicans and somewhat for senate republicans. But I think you're right, I think the best we can hope for here, if the committee does not engage in full-scale tax reform, that they at least go after other revenue sources here beyond simply cuts.

NNAMDISarah Binder, thank you so much for joining us.

BINDERSure. Thanks for having me.

NNAMDISarah Binder's a professor of political science with George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, what the budget crisis could mean for much malign and often misunderstood farm subsidies. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.