Conservatives didn’t get everything they wanted from the debt ceiling bill, but they got something very important. It was the first meaningful deficit reduction in exchange for raising the debt ceiling since 2011. But unless Congress follows through on this first step, taxpayers could reap the benefits. The deficit reduction effect of the agreement was smaller than expected.

On paper, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the debt ceiling agreement, the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), Reduce the deficit by $2.1 trillion over the next decade. That’s only one-tenth of the projected deficit increase over the period, but the $2.1 trillion figure is ridiculed, especially given the nine debt ceiling deals since 2011. it shouldn’t be. List includes Six deals had virtually no change in deficits, while three others worsened deficits by a total of $532 billion.

Many of the FRA savings come from discretionary spending caps that limit spending growth from 2024 to 2029. This is an important step toward fiscal responsibility, but only if Congress doesn’t set a cap as soon as it becomes inconvenient. .

Unfortunately, under the FRA it will be even easier after 2025 than it is now. The discretionary spending caps under this bill are enforceable through foreclosures for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, but the caps for fiscal years 2026 through 2029 are merely “recommendations.” In other words, Congress is free to simply ignore them and spend as it pleases.

If Congress fails to adhere to these “recommended” spending caps, the advertised $2.1 trillion deficit cuts will end up with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts, reducing taxpayer savings by $553 billion. It will be. Given that the FRA is seen only as a positive first step toward fiscal responsibility, it would be concerning if Congress were unable to comply with this most modest spending cut.

But not all lawmakers simply believe that future Congresses will remember their promises to taxpayers. Rep. Glenn Grossman (R-Wisconsin)’s “Enforce Cap Act” will further curb these caps by making them mandatory rather than recommended.

What makes this bill particularly important is that the broader deficit reduction plan needed to bring the country’s debt back to manageable levels goes far beyond policies aimed at discretionary spending. It is a fact that severe reduction is necessary. If Congress is unable to maintain the politically easier cuts, it bodes badly for its ability to prioritize the country’s fiscal position over immediate political goals.

The country’s accumulated debt, which is now at alarming levels, is expected to grow at alarming rates in the coming decades. The main reason is that demographic changes have made social security and other entitlements (budgetary term for mandatory social expenditures) insolvent. By 2033, the cost of these rights, including interest payments on the national debt, will exceed total tax revenues.

Addressing these politically untouchable programs is much harder than cutting discretionary spending, much harder than cutting discretionary spending that Congress has already privately promised. Rep. Grossman’s bill would help ensure Congress protects at least baby steps.

When it comes to the national debt, it’s not really a question of whether cuts are necessary, but rather whether Congress chooses to cut now or force future generations to cut. Much work remains to avoid the latter.

Andrew Wilford is a Senior Policy Analyst at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the research and education of tax and fiscal policy at all levels of government.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.