Not Even the Moody's Downgrade Can Make Republicans Take the National Debt Seriously
Friday's announcement by Moody's and the House Budget Committee vote could have been a turning point.

In a world where federal policymakers were treating America's national debt with the seriousness it deserves, Friday might have been a crucial turning point in Washington.
First, the House Budget Committee voted down President Donald Trump's tax proposal when four Republican members of the committee broke ranks over concerns about how the bill is projected to increase the budget deficit and the debt. "This bill falls profoundly short," said Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas), one of those four GOP members, during the committee's debate on the bill. "It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits."
Hours later, Moody's Ratings seemingly agreed with those objections when the credit rating agency downgraded the federal government's debt—a signal to investors that buying Treasury bonds is a riskier bet than it used to be. In a statement, Moody's said that the downgrade reflected the fact that Congress and the president "have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs," and noted that "current fiscal proposals under consideration" would not do anything to reduce spending and deficits.
Indeed, the tax bill under consideration in the House will add at least $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, according to an estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That figure rises to more than $5 trillion if various temporary measures in the bill become permanent. Those figures should give any member of Congress pause, even if the federal government wasn't already on pace to add $22 trillion to the debt in the next decade and even if Moody's (and other credit rating agencies) weren't already sounding the alarm.
"Moody's downgrade must be a wake-up call for Congress," Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, told Reason. "Issued mere hours after Congress floated adding $5 trillion in new deficits—thereby threatening to accelerate the already unsustainable $20 trillion debt increase by 25 percent between now and 2034—shows how unserious lawmakers have become about solving the federal budget crisis. This kind of fiscal recklessness, on top of already unsustainable entitlement and interest spending increases, signals to markets that the U.S. political system may no longer be capable of self-correcting."
Alas, by Sunday night, it was obvious that we don't live in a world where federal policymakers are taking this seriously.
In response to Friday's events, the Trump administration urged Republicans to stick their heads deeper in the sand. Asked about the credit rating downgrade during a Sunday appearance on Meet The Press, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, "Who cares?" He also called the downgrade a "lagging indicator" that reflected poor decisions by the Biden administration.
It's true that the Biden administration made poor fiscal decisions. In that regard, it has a lot in common with the first Trump administration—which added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt in just four years—and the Obama and Bush administrations before it. As Moody's pointed out in its statement about the rating change, the federal government's worsening fiscal condition is the result of multiple presidential administrations and congresses.
Still, that's not a very good reason for making a bad situation worse, which is what the tax bill is likely to do. Blaming Biden for the obvious, negative fiscal consequences of a bill that Trump and his Republican allies are trying to pass makes no sense at all.
That bill is now closer to passing. Late Sunday night, the House Budget Committee held a second vote on the bill, and the four Republican holdouts from Friday voted "present" rather than "no"—enough to allow the bill to progress out of committee.
Republicans are, in fairness, in a difficult spot here. They have a minuscule majority in the House, and failing to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts would mean effectively raising taxes on nearly all Americans. It appears that the easiest solution is to do what has been done so many other times this century: accept higher borrowing as a trade-off for politically expedient policymaking, and keep ignoring the warning signs.
"For those looking for a signpost to tell us when to stop adding to our national debt, they should look no further than Moody's downgrade," said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which advocates for reducing the deficit, in response to the Moody's announcement on Friday. "It's unacceptable for a great country like America to harm its own credit rating. We have plenty of options on the table to fix this, and it can be done quickly, with leadership."
He's right. This weekend was a test for the current crop of Republican leaders in Congress and the White House. Once again, they seem to have failed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I could balance this budget in under an hour.
Yeah, but you'll never get reelected.
Neither will Trump - - - - - -
You misspelled “Uniparty”, Eric.
Yep. Elite Washington DC! I prefer to live surrounded by wild animals. They are more honest; they are more honorable and dependable. I think they're actually smarter than most people in DC. For an example, try this simple experiment: Take the whole lot of the US Senate and replace them with one hundred black bears. Then put out 100 bowls of honey and 100 bowls filled with plastic beads and credit cards. I guarantee all 100 bears will vote for the honey every time. This is because they know what is best for them and their kind - their constituants, if you will. They are based in reality, and therefore more trustworthy than our entire political class.
STOP VOTING FOR RUIN; ELECT A BRUIN!
Beware those who advocate for bears in trunks!
Well, it's pretty much a given that Democrats don't take it seriously. If anyone is going to do something about spending, it would have to be Republicans. But they don't seem to be willing or able to do so except a few weirdos.
Majority of major spending has to be passed through regular order: ss, Medicaid, Medicare. That requires 60 votes. Not 53.
Correct. Boehm is a window licker.
Every democrat has voted against every spending cut.
You and reason are now openly supporting raising income taxes.
The spending is decreased on this bill. Entitlements can't largely be affected by reconciliation. Reason has been very vocal outside of 2 writers on DOGE and spending cuts.
This is getting ridiculous.
Translation:
"You didn't complain when Democrats [insert red herring here] you hypocrite! That means you can't complain about Trump! Stop complaining about Trump! Stop it! I said stop it or I'm gonna cry!"
Poor sarc. Out of ideas™ .
Trumps budget plan is 8% less than last year.
Trumps deficits ran 1/3rd that of Bidens.
"But if you don't blame Trump you're a hypocrite!" /sarc.
They can't be honest about this.
And sarc has spent 5 mi the saying Trump can't cut spending ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No. My comments were very clear retard. The fact is Reason is now complaining, like you, that the US isn't raising income taxes lol.
It's also pretty ridiculous that Republicans, supposedly the more fiscally restrained party that cares about these things, cannot even agree among themselves on a plan to meaningfully cut spending. And tax cuts are great, but if the spending continues as it has, we'll pay for it one way or another eventually.
Why? They have a bare majority and there are enough who prioritize other things over budget issues, which means they can throw a wrench into getting anything passed. Not to mention, the very nature of democratic politics makes fiscal discipline a hard sell to most voters to begin with.
Also the limited scope of reconciliation bills. Which continues to be ignored.
I don't buy the likes of chip roy as being honest as he is also apparently holding up recissions identified by DOGE.
That's funny! Spending is decreased, except for all the increases.
But you got one thing right, it is ridiculous.
Lower prices by adding tariffs! Here: https://reason.com/2025/05/19/trump-threatens-walmart-not-to-react-to-his-tariffs/?comments=true#comment-11053049
No, retard, tariffs do raise prices, because they are taxes. Are you claiming Trump has added negative tariffs?
But you literally won't show the data. Lol.
Oh, suddenly it's not negative tariffs which lower prices, but a whole bunch of other shit. Hey, genius, how much lower would the prices have been without the tariffs?
Jesse: 2+2 = 3 because there's an invisible -1 in there. Lol.
World: Genius!
Then you should be able to link it again, but oh wait, did you just admit there were increases? I guess less than 3% doesn't count.
Now let's see you do the same magic for decreasing budgets by spending more!
Many of these responses are saying he doesn't have data. So, suggestion, show your own data proving him wrong?
Jesse: 2+2 = 3 because there's an invisible -1 in there. Lol.
World: Genius!
LEFT + RIGHT = ZERO! GENIUS!
lol
Adding him to the JDS crew. He hates it when you point out reality refuses to conform to his ignorance.
Oh, I'd forgotten that stupid reply existed. Was it Hihn that posted it all the time?
You've gone full sarc again buddy lol.
Guess you didn't bother reading thr link I gave you.
Keep up hope your failed economics model that hasn't shown to be true in 200 years will prove you right.
Fucking sarc like idiot. Hint. I even showed how you are pushing keyenesian ideals. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is amazing I can give you real examples, ie existing in reality, and you choose to ignore then due to your bumper sticker understanding of economics.
Hint. When Nelson, sarc, brandy and other leftists are repeating your same false narratives, self inspection is needed regarding your knowledge.
You have never once rebutted a single thing I have written. You can claim it all you want, but you can't show any links because you have none. If all my comments you ignore were so easy to rebut, why haven't you? Because you can't.
The most basic proof of how far your nose is up Trump's butt is that you have never once admitted Trump has made mistakes or lied. You did once say something along the lines of you would admit it if he did, but it had never happened.
You are a bloviating fraud. Trump has more integrity than you do, and has actually accomplished some good.
Jesse has never been wrong. Just ask him.
Can you point out when over been wrong? Especially on the issues the last 4 months?
Most intelligent people don't start their economic discussions with "assuming every other variable remains static" to make an argument. But you retards seem to only believe in an economic system that does just this. That's not reality.
Let me give you and STG an example of your flawed analysis and thinking.
Go read up on three Tacoma Narrows bridge. Bridge construction is far more well known than economics. So they build a bridge. Even during construction when they felt the bridge sway, they trusted their models, they just knew. All variables were known. Construction was known.
Yet when enough wind met an oscillating factor they hadn't considered, what happened?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)
To put this in perspective you're not even to the bridge engineers level on economics. You just once built one with Legos.
The ecosystem isn't Legos. It is complex. But you refuse to even recognize this facts. Even when your predictions fail.
Economics system*
“ This is getting ridiculous.”
Yes, it is. Republicans control all three branches of government. They won all 7 battleground states. They constantly claim that Democrats are the ones who prevent them from cutting spending and balancing the budget.
Well, here’s their chance. They have a President who doesn’t care who he pisses off, Congressional delegations that are unified behind him, and an opposition party that can’t find its ass with both hands and a map.
There is literally no excuse left for them. Put up or shut up. We don’t just need a balanced budget. We desperately, at almost an existential level, need a balanced budget. The party that claims to want fiscal responsibility is more powerful than it has been since Reagan.
If they can’t get it done in this political environment with this little opposition and this much unity, it will never get done.
Do they have the will to do it? My guess is no. They’re all talk.
Like you said, this is getting ridiculous.
I downgraded US Treasury bonds to ZZZ like 20 years ago. Glad to see Moodys finally noticed.
Did we think the Trump admin was going to bring any responsibility to spending? And are the Democrats so far gone that we're not even bothering to hold them to any fiscal standards anymore?
Not really, but you have to have some hope sometimes. And yes.
And are the Democrats so far gone that we're not even bothering to hold them to any fiscal standards anymore?
Reluctantly and strategically.
Well. In-case everyone hadn't already noticed.
Democrats fiscal standard sits on, "It's all those other people's fault!"
Which is of no-surprise at all from the same who think nothing has to be earned.
Indeed. Democrats are trying to set the ship on fire and blow it up and Republicans are only letting it sink.
I suppose it's better to write articles on Republican infighting since it's just a foregone conclusion that Democrats are going to 100% vote against any cuts whatsoever and are disappointed there aren't massive increases instead.
There is no winning horse for fiscal conservatives or libertarians in this race.
And for what it's worth, this was always going to be how the United States went down. It's been noted for hundreds of years that our system of government would last about as long as it took the populace to realize they could vote themselves money, and we are now way past that point and well into the decline.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I see this alleged Churchill quotation often. I have tried to locate the source of that quote, but I have not been able to trace it. Is it genuine, and if so, where and when did he say it? —D.C., Bogotá, Colombia
The USA is (?was?) a *Constitutional* Republic.
Championing it as just a 'democracy' is precisely how it has faltered.
An actual USA (by definition) wouldn't suffer any of these problems.
Do you take lessons or do you completely miss the point naturally?
All this from the publication that declared DOGE a failure.
Because it is. It’s more of a hot mess than a methhead sex addict in a trailer park in West Virginia.
Libertarians For Tax Increases (Except Tarriffs, those are BAD taxes, don't you dare!)
It continues to amazed me.
They are also for bad economic analysis, see this groups estimates for the original 2017 cuts, and deregulation and growth from that (not included). But hey, works on sarc and STG.
You mean the tax cuts that helped the first Trump administration rack up $8 trillion in deficits in just 4 years, a significant percentage of which is directly attributable to that supply-side boondoggle? If that’s success, we’ll never recover from another success like that.
LMAO ... "concerns about how the bill is projected to increase the budget deficit and the debt"
source: Veronique de Rugy
Trump CUTS the deficit by 8% ... Source (the actual proposal)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf
Year over year deficit is also reduced last month. But as we continue to see, actual data is to be ignored for the more accurate political model projections.
This is "Reason", not "Truth".
Boehm, did you expect the Democrats to allow it? Do you expect them to do better when next they're in power?
So the rationale for not doing something good for the country is “Well, the Democrats won’t allow our party, which controls the White House and both houses of Congress, to do it, so we shouldn’t even try.”?
It is going to be up to foreigners to create the funding crisis. Interesting to see how it will unfold