As is often the case these days, conservatives get a lot of hate. The culprit appears to be the most important spending agreement between House Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and now the agreement on life support. Despite their slim majority, conservatives say they want to cut spending even further, hopefully leading to a balanced budget and even a surplus as soon as possible. That's what they say, but does everyone really mean it? Be suspicious.

The deal between Johnson and Schumer would increase defense spending by about 3%, while keeping non-defense spending essentially flat year over year. After inflation, defense spending would fall by 2% to 3% in “real terms,” ​​which sounds like a small victory for conservatives, but why does Schumer say it's “a good deal for Democrats and the country?” Did I say that? Perhaps it's because spending has already skyrocketed in recent years, and pausing to stop this year's budget merry-go-round is a painless price to pay. That would also explain why conservatives remain angry.

When Republicans use classic language about balancing the budget and paying the bills, it's music to many ears. But one wonders whether those same Republicans would go down that path if given the chance, or whether it's all just convenient talk because it can't actually happen. Even if Donald Trump wins a second term in November and they have a majority, will they still take up arms? (Related: Terrence P. Jeffrey: It's not enough to keep the deficit from widening. We need to get into the black – and fast)

Last May, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the budget deficit in 2024 would exceed $1.6 trillion. Some suspect that with a surge in emergency spending, the final number will be much closer to $2 trillion, but for the sake of argument, let's keep it at $1.6 trillion, which is a bad enough amount. Let's light it.

The question before the court is what conservative fiscal hawks will do to achieve a balanced budget that wipes out the entire $1.6 trillion. They certainly don't want to raise taxes, so basically they would have to cut spending on defense, Social Security, Medicare, and everything else by about 28%. That's a tall order, even for experts. (Related: JD FOSTER: Draining the academic swamp)

Balancing the budget over a period of time can soften the blow, but the typical time period is 10 years, with little up-front pain and leaving all the hard decisions for the future. From Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to today, such approaches will never reach the Promised Land. Recession and emergency intervene. The upcoming Congress will be forced into a situation where difficult decisions are simply impossible.

For fiscal hawks to be trusted, they need to establish their legitimacy. Passionate floor speeches don't go well, but there's a problem. Even if a brave member had a thorough plan and quickly redressed the balance, it would be crazy to reveal that plan. Criticism will dwindle.

So how do we know which members are truly dovs with hawk wings and which are true hawks dedicated to fiscal discipline? Establish.

To participate, members must submit detailed plans to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for scoring. Member countries may, but do not have to, publish their plans, but CBO scoring requires that equilibrium be achieved within four years and that at least a quarter of the deficit reduction occurs in the first year.

CBO will report whether the plan meets the test. If that happens, members can join the caucus. That way, any truly hawkish caucus member will speak with credibility when they complain about budget deficits and rising government debt. Their floor speeches may henceforth be called shrieks.

And what happens to members who are vocal fiscal hawks but are not members of the true hawkish caucus? Well, everyone would know what they actually are, including voters.

J.D. Foster is the former Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget and the former Chief Economist and Executive Vice Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now lives relatively freely in the hills of Idaho.

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

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.