moody

Kevin Sinfield, who was awarded a CBE for his services to the motor neurone disease community after his friend Burrow’s diagnosis inspired him to raise more than £10m to fund research and awareness, sent Moody a message of support and made a fresh vow to tackle the disease.

“I’m obviously very saddened by the news,” said Sinfield, who is the skills and kicking coach for the England national team. “I’d like to wish Lewis, and all his family and friends, the very best.

“I’ll support in any way I can. We have to keep fighting MND [motor neurone disease] together.”

Andrea Pinchen, CEO at Leicester Tigers where Moody made 223 appearances, winning seven English titles and two European crowns over 14 years, also paid tribute to Moody as a person, as well as a player.

“The figures, trophies and awards tell you what an incredible player Lewis was, but that is only half the story,” said Pinchen.

“One minute he’s parading around with the World Cup trophy and the following Friday he’d be in the ticket office where I worked, answering the phone to supporters if we were really busy and helping sell tickets.

“As an individual, his commitment to his club along with his warmth and passion shone through, which endeared him to team-mates, staff and supporters alike.

“Always looking to help others, Lewis together with his wife Annie have worked tirelessly through the Lewis Moody Foundation, supporting research into brain tumours and helping affected families.

“He absolutely threw himself in. It was very much lead by example. He would never ask somebody to do something he wouldn’t do himself. He is utterly fearless.”

Football’s Leicester City added their support, describing Moody as “a sporting great of our city”., external

America’s debt-addicted government just lost its triple-A credit rating from Moody’s, as it previously had from fellow rating agencies S&P and Fitch. Many in Washington shrugged the move off as minor or as unfair treatment of the Trump administration. The truth is more sobering: a flashing red signal that the United States is no longer seen as a “perfect” credit risk and that politicians should stop pretending economic growth alone can bail us out.

Yes, the mess is real, and it’s because habitual deficit financing — the very disease fiscally minded founding father Alexander Hamilton warned against — has become business as usual.

The reckoning comes as House Republicans push to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts with a “big, beautiful bill.” If handled correctly, it’s a good idea. But while the legislation aims to avoid tax hikes, it pairs modestly pro-growth provisions with a smorgasbord of costly special-interest giveaways. Worse, it assumes we can afford yet another $3 trillion to $5 trillion in debt without serious consequences. That’s the kind of magical thinking that spurred the credit downgrade.

Starting with Hamilton, American politicians long understood the importance of fiscal policy guided by the ethos of balanced budgets, low taxes and steady debt reduction. Their vision, combined with a deep respect for contractual repayment and financial responsibility, made America a creditor nation.

Washington abandoned that honorable legacy in recent decades. U.S. national debt held by the public is racing toward $30 trillion, and the cost of servicing it is ballooning. Interest payments are now one of the fastest-growing parts of the budget — $1 trillion in 2026 — crowding out core priorities and leaving us vulnerable to economic shocks. The Congressional Budget Office warns that even modest interest-rate increases could lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in added annual costs. It’s not a theoretical problem; it’s a real, compounding threat.

Which brings us back to the downgrade. Historically, downgrades like those from S&P in 2011 or Fitch in 2023 haven’t caused immediate crises, but they do raise borrowing costs and gradually erode investor confidence. The downgrades are not the problem, but symptoms of a deeper illness: lack of credible fiscal discipline. Market participants aren’t worried because Moody’s wrote a negative report; they’re worried because what Moody’s wrote is true.

If our political class continues to ignore warnings, the market will do what rating agencies only hint at: impose real discipline through higher borrowing costs, weaker currency demand and tighter credit conditions. Already, China and other countries have reduced holdings of U.S. Treasuries from 42% in 2019 to 30% today.

Meanwhile, the tax plan so far embodies Washington’s worst habits. It makes only temporary the most important pro-growth provisions of the 2017 tax cuts — like full expensing for equipment and research and development — while rendering permanent a raft of unrelated policies catering to favored industries and constituencies. That’s not tax reform; it’s pork-barrel politics dressed up as populist economics.

Worse still, the bill’s Republican supporters in the House justify it with the fantastical claim that it’s fiscally responsible based on the notion that it will raise trillions in growth-generated revenue. Even the most optimistic models show the current bill barely moving the growth needle. The administration claims growth will be enormous once it deregulates and sells off assets, but these distinct policies take a long time to bear fruit.

What a missed opportunity. According to Tax Foundation experts, making just four cost-recovery provisions permanent — bonus depreciation, R&D expensing, full expensing for factories and reforming the business-interest limitation — would more than double the tax bill’s long-run growth benefits.

That’s where legislators should be focused. Not on tax breaks for hand-picked industries or energy credits for hand-picked technologies — on structural reforms that maximize American investment, innovation and capital formation. Even such pro-growth tax policy must be paired with real spending restraint, something we haven’t seen in earnest since the 1990s. Otherwise, any gains from better tax policy will have red ink spilled all over them.

The lesson from Moody’s, and from history, is that America cannot borrow its way to prosperity. That was Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s view in the 1920s, and it remains true today. Mellon quietly prepared for debt defaults by building budget surpluses, knowing that while international repayments might fail, American citizens still had to be paid. That was back when Treasury secretaries respected taxpayers.

Now, as then, we stand at a crossroads. Will we restore Hamiltonian principles of fiscal prudence or continue down a path where downgrades become defaults and our creditors decide the terms of American fiscal policy? The next move belongs to Congress. Legislators can’t say they weren’t warned. If they fail the fiscal prudence test again, we’ll all pay the price.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is one big, ugly mess.

We’ve seen false advertising in naming laws before — the Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act jumps to mind. Yet no legislation has been as misbranded as the Republican tax and spending cuts that President Trump, the branding aficionado himself, is pushing along a tortuous path in Congress.

Trump’s appeal to many Americans has always been his purported penchant for “telling it like it is.” But he’s doing the opposite by labeling as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” a behemoth that encompasses just about everything he can’t even try to do by unilateral executive orders — deeper tax cuts, more spending on the military and on his immigration crackdown and, yes, Medicaid cuts. His so-called beauty is a beast so frightening that ratings firm Moody’s saw the details last week, calculated the resulting debt and on Friday downgraded the United States’ sterling credit rating for the first time in more than 100 years. That likely means higher interest costs for the nation’s increased borrowing ahead.

And yet, in another example of the gaslighting at which Trump and his party are so adept, the White House and House Republican leaders dismissed the rebuke of their bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would spur economic growth — the old, discredited “tax cuts will pay for themselves” argument. Speaker Mike Johnson said the Moody’s downgrade just proved the urgent need to pass the big, beautiful bill with its “historic spending cuts.” Which only proved that Johnson didn’t read Moody’s rationale, explaining that spending cuts would be far exceeded by tax cuts, thereby reducing the government’s revenues and piling up more debt.

The Republican Party, which postures as the fiscally conservative of the two parties despite decades of evidence to the contrary, would add about $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if its bill becomes law, according to Moody’s. Other nonpartisan analyses — including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania, similarly project additional debt in the $3-trillion-plus to $5-trillion range, more if the tax cuts are made permanent as Trump and Republicans want.

No surprise: Trump, after all, set a record for the most debt in a single presidential term: $8.4 trillion during Trump 1.0, nearly twice what accrued under his successor, President Biden. Most of Trump’s first-term red ink stemmed from his 2017 tax cuts and spending, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s costly response.

“This bill does not add to the deficit,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted to reporters on Monday, showing yet again why such a facile dissembler was chosen to speak for the habitually prevaricating president.

“That’s a joke,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded.

Worse, it’s a lie.

And no surprise here, either, but Trump’s tariffs — another economic monstrosity that he’s declared “beautiful” — aren’t paying for this bill despite his claims. Yet the president repeated that falsehood on Tuesday (along with others), when he visited the Capitol to strong-arm Republican dissidents, including Massie, into supporting the measure ahead of a House vote. (Inside a closed caucus with House Republicans, the president reportedly called for Massie to be unseated; the Kentuckian remains opposed.)

“The economy is doing great, the stock market is higher now than when I came to office. And we’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff money,” Trump told reporters at the Capitol. Every point a lie.

(This week provided yet more evidence that he’s utterly wrong to keep insisting that foreign countries pay his tariffs, not American consumers. After Walmart, the largest U.S. retailer, said late last week that it would have to raise prices, Trump posted that it should “ ‘EAT THE TARIFFS.’ ” He added: “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” This after a Walmart exec said that “the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb.”)

While details of the budget bill shift as Republican leaders dicker with their dissidents, here’s the ugly general outline, according to Penn Wharton:

Extending and expanding Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which otherwise expire this year, would cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, $5.8 trillion if the cuts are permanent. (Mandating that tax cuts expire after a time, as Trump did in 2017, is an old budget gimmick to understate a bill’s cost. The politicians know they’ll just extend the tax breaks, as we’re seeing now.) The bill’s proposed spending increases for the military, immigration enforcement and deportations would cost about $600 billion more.

Spending cuts over 10 years, mostly to Medicaid as well as to Obamacare, food stamps and clean-energy programs, would save about $1.6 trillion. That offsets as little as one-quarter of the cost of Trump’s tax cuts and added spending.

Also, the bill is inequitable. The tax cuts would disproportionately favor corporations and wealthy Americans. Its spending cuts, however, would mostly cost lower- and some middle-income people who benefit from federal health and nutrition programs. Changes to Medicaid, including a work requirement (92% of recipients under 65 already work full or part-time, according to the health research organization KFF), and to Obamacare would leave up to 14 million people without health insurance.

Penn Wharton found that people with household income less than $51,000, for example, would see their after-tax income reduced if the bill becomes law, and the top 0.1% of income-earners would get hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. Beyond that time, Penn Wharton projected, “all future households are worse off” given the long-term impact of spiraling debt and a tattered safety net.

“Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” Trump told Republicans at the Capitol, according to numerous reports. How cynical, given that he was pressuring them to vote for a bill that would do just that.

All of which recalls an acronym that’s popular these days: FAFO.

@jackiekcalmes