Gas prices back up as July ends. And lower supplies will keep them high

As the US and Iran cranked up its military bombings in the Middle East this week, it drove up oil prices further, ending the week up more than 30% from where we were at America's 250th birthday.

But it’s not just speculation on fear of what might happen in the future that’s driving up those oil prices, as our real-life supplies are continuing to get more scarce today. We drew another 5.06 million barrels off of the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) last week, bringing the total pull over 100 million barrels since the Trump Administration started using the SPR to try to stabilize oil and gas prices in April.

Not only are oil reserves shrinking, but so is the amount of gasoline that’s on the market in America. That’s a striking contrast to what was happening at this time in 2022, which was the last time pump prices were over $4 a gallon nationwide. 4 years ago, gas stockpiles were growing.

And unlike July 2022, gas prices have gone back on the rise in the US in July 2026, up nearly 15 cents in the last week. Given the short supplies, higher oil futures, and Trump/GOP’s inability to fold their losing hand, it seems likely that August 2026 will have higher gas prices than we saw August 2022.

In addition, Tropical Storm Bertha shut down production at a Chevron refinery for a while this week, so that cut another 2 million barrels of oil off the market.

The low supplies in the States and the need to replenish that low SPR amount sooner than later means it oil might well be taken off the market in the later part of this year instead of being added. So I wouldn’t count on gas prices going down any time soon, and with that in mind, I also can’t see Americans’ already-declining savings rate turning around for much of the rest of 2026.

Sure, we'll likely see an increase in savings for June when that gets reported next week due to that month's drop in prices. But we know prices are going back up for July, and I can't think there was a big boost in income to offset that.

So any improving feelings that consumers may have had when gas dropped down is likely to go away when they see that big 4 in front of the pump price again. And if it stays that way in August (as it likely will), they might be even more stressed than they were when consumer sentiment was hitting record lows in May.

Pt. 2 - Primary mess shows Wisconsin needs election reforms

To follow up on my thoughts about the state of the Dem Governor's primary, the way it has developed leads me to think there are 2 clear reforms to the primary system in Wisconsin that needs to happen, given how politics works in the mid-2020s.

1. There needs to be campaign finance reports in April for the 1st quarter of the calendar year before the primary. in 2026, there were no finance reports between Jan 15 and July 15, and it resulted in all of these candidates staying in and waiting to see where their money situation compared with everyone else. This led to a lack of direction as to who was up or down, and a lack of attention to the Governor’s race in general. This allowed the one candidate who was actively creating content through media and public events (Francesca Hong) to gain a following. It also allowed Sara Rodriguez’s fundraising and resource discrepancies to go unnoticed by both her and the general public until the verge of that July 15 report, when all of a sudden, she discovered that her campaign was out of money!

Yes, it is gross that money and resources are given such creedence in current-day politics over ideas and voter interest. But it’s also how media and donors measure candidates’ chances, and they slant their coverage and interest accordingly (because horse race stuff is easier to report and evaluate than actual positions). So why do we have to wait 6 months between reports to get an update on these things?

Why do we find out so late?

Our current campaign finance system in Wisconsin requires one large report with 6 months of data to collect vs 2 smaller reports that could come every 3 months. Quarterly reports allow any gaps in reporting, resources or infromation to be caught sooner to the time it hapens, and doesn't require so much staffing and campaign work for filing in July, which is one month before voters go to the polls - a time candidates and staff would rather be ramping up and meeting voters.

2. We need Ranked Choice Voting in Wisconsin, especially for primaries. In this Governor’s race, I think a lot of Wisconsin Dems are fine with most or even all of the candidates that have run. If we had ranked choice voting, voters could comfortably choose who they think is the best candidate, particularly if they thought no candidate would get 50% of the first-place votes (as will likely happen in the Dem Governor’s primary regardless of who wins). 15 miles from the Wisconsin border, the City of Minneapolis has ranked-choice voting for its mayoral elections and other local offices. And Minnesota Public Radio has a good explainer of how RCV works.

If there was a general consensus of 2-3 candidates that everyone could agree on, and those candidates were ranked 1 through 3 on most ballots, eventually an unacceptable 4th or 5th candidate would likely be eliminated, even if that 4th or 5th candidate had the most first-place votes.

Because Wisconsin only allows for first-place votes, many of us are trying to be strategic with our primary vote, choose a candidate that can win and/or defeat a certain other candidate (for a sizable group of Dems in Wisconsin in late July 2026, this means figuring out which candidate can get more votes than Fran Hong). What we don't want is to throw away our vote on a candidate that may end up at 4-5%.

My mother-in-law had voting deputies go around in her assisted living center to pick up her absentee ballot this week, and when she asked me my advice as to who to vote for, I told her to hold onto her ballot and wait until later. Because I didn’t want her to throw away her vote on a candidate that won’t be able to win, or worse, drop out before Election Day. I’m still waiting to fill out my absentee ballot for the same reason.

I know of people that have sent in their absentee ballot with a vote for the now-withdrawn Sara Rodriguez. As of today, those voters are screwed, according to a ruling from earlier this month by the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Voters who cast their ballots early and want to change their vote – for example, if their chosen candidate drops out of the race before ] Election Day – can no longer do so under new guidance stemming from a recent court ruling.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted Thursday to issue guidance limiting voters' ability to "spoil" their ballots only in limited circumstances that do not include deciding to vote for another candidate….

Previously, Wisconsin voters had the ability to cancel their previously submitted ballot and request a new one for any reason, up to three times. That changed in October 2022 when then-Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel ruled the practice, called "ballot spoiling," was illegal.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals then put the circuit court ruling on hold, and ruled earlier this year to reverse Schimel's decision. The appeals court's February 2026 decision did not address the merits of the case, but found the lawsuit was not properly served in the first place.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is now supporting a lawsuit to reverse that ruling, and given that absentee ballots are not opened or tallied until Election Day in Wisconsin, a successful suit by the DPW would allow those voters a second chance in this primary.

This is how the lack of RCV makes many votes worthless and often leaves voters stressed and forced to choose less-optimal candidates. In addition, because there have been so few polls and other indicators as to the state of the race, I and others are now waiting longer to make our choice as a result, in order to lessen the chances of having that vote not matter or be a regret due to later developments.

RCV may be less needed in General Elections, as it is rare that there will be more than 2 candidates that are viable or where voters are accepting of more than 1 of the choices given to them. But I'll add that RCV at least makes it worthwhile for some third-party or non-party candidates to pursue a run vs not even trying because of first-past-the-post. As long as Wisconsin would include a "sore loser" law to avoid having a candidate who loses a party primary get back in the general election.

If Dems do pull off the trifecta this November, we need to be pushing the new Legislature and Governor to get behind Ranked Choice Voting so we don’t end up in this kind of stressful mess of a primary again. There are significant flaws that the last month has exposed in our current system, and the lack of information and options that have been given to voters, media and candidates could lead to outcomes in 2 1/2 weeks that a majority of voters did not ask for.

And how does that help anyone beyond a few insiders, campaign consultants and douchebag MAGAts (who thrive on sneaking through with the support of a fraction-of-a-fraction that votes in primaries) that already have enough advantages?

A few thoughts on the Dem Guv primary race

2 weeks ago, the Democratic primary in the Governor’s race seemed to have come into focus.

State Rep. Francesca Hong had a solid group of support but a question as to whether she led and how many more voters she could attract.

Former Lt. Gov Mandela Barnes seemed to be stagnating and possibly fading out, and current Lt. Gov Sara Rodriguez was on the rise as the alternative to both of these candidates. I personally was behind Rodriguez and had the yard sign out.

Milwaukee Co Exec David Crowley had just dropped out and was endorsing Rodriguez, and State Sen. Kelda Roys and Joel Brennan were at the bottom of the pack and seemed to be on the verge of dropping out.

And now….here we are today. Rodriguez is out, the sign is out of our yard, Crowley is back in, and “undecided” is still winning this week’s Marquette Law School Poll of 414 Democratic primary voters.

With Rodriguez out and Crowley back in, this poll was already out of date by the time its results went public this Wednesday. As a result, Charles Franklin and company say there will be a do-over poll that will release its results next Wednesday, which makes me curious why our media and Wisconsin politics put so much creedence as the MU Poll being the voice of God in the first place.

Sure, I worry Hong might drag down some downticket Dem candidates if she was the nominee. She and Barnes are the Dem candidates that would trigger the most dumb white Wisconsinites and other low-info voters, and you’d see the most dishonest and racist GOP ads we have ever seen in this state (yes, worse than what was dumped on Barnes in 2022 vs Ron Johnson). I do think Hong or Barnes can win in November – but I also think they’re the 2 candidates that give Tom Tiffany his best chance to win.

What’s making me frantic about the situation is less the prospect of Francesca Hong having a base of strong support or Mandela Barnes slipping into a nomination despite having zero juice among anyone paying attention. It’s more than there is no indication whatsoever as to where this race is going, and who else can win.

It’s a simple math problem. If you think that Fran tops out her support at around 40%, then it becomes harder with 4 other candidates in the race to get one of them over 40% to beat her. But if there are 3 other candidates it’s easier to get one to 41%, with 2 others it’s very possible, and she’d likely lose a 1-on-1. But in the absence of polling or other signals that yes, THIS one person is the Fran Alternative, voters are left scrambling and confused.

Am I supposed to get behind Crowley because Governor Evers and some SE Wis local officials endorsed him, or is there a reason he didn’t catch on before he dropped out, and that he is being a self-centered fool that is wasting all of our time? And one that will be unfairly attacked for the budget deficits and many needs that still remain in Milwaukee County (much of which isn't Crowley's fault, but GOPs and some low-info voters won't care about that).

Should I get behind Roys, who is solidly progressive with experience in the Legislature, and is the type of candidate who Republicans have no game plan against – a smart white mother who doesn’t put up with their misdirecting BS. But Kelda can’t even get to 5% in almost any poll, and was at 1% in this week's Marquette Poll. So is there any point to getting behind someone that can’t win? She’s got 1 week – put up or shut up, Kelda.

Brennan is a different category, because his “more boring and corporate Evers” routine isn’t connecting, and the money he was supposed to get from the MKE corporates and other insider connections hasn’t really happened. Brennan also just angered the WisDems’ Black Caucus by running an ad saying that the Guv candidates Of Color couldn’t win, but say the same for the lower-polling Roys. SO WHY IS HE STILL IN THIS RACE? If there’s one candidate that should drop, it’s Brennan. He has no lane.

If you think that Fran Hong must be stopped in order to increase Dems’ chances of winning a trifecta in November and getting real change done in this state, I get that (I’m not terrified by Fran winning the primary, but it’s not my preferred outcome). But there doesn’t seem to be an agreed-upon strategy as to how to do that, and there is no one candidate that voters or other candidates are consolidating around to do that.

And that clarity of what would (or would not) happen by choosing a certain candidate is what we need. In the words of the late great Ric Ocasek - JUST TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!

Odd and huge differences between household and payrolls surveys in Midwest over last year

Following up from last week's state jobs report, I noticed that Wisconsin has a disparity between their payrolls survey (which account for the number of jobs listed for a state) and the household survey (which is where the unemployment rate and labor force numbers are derived from). In our case, the household survey shows larger growth over the last year than the payrolls survey does.

June 2025-June 2026
Wisconsin
Change in Jobs +2,000
Change in Labor Force +25,900
Change in Employed +16,600
Change in Unemployed +9,300

Then I looked at the State-by-State jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics today, and I noticed that other states have much larger disparities between these two surveys. Look at these two charts, and note how many states have slow or declining job growth while also having low unemployment, or have stronger job growth with higher unemployment.

You’ll notice Minnesota is an especially odd case – being 1 of 6 states nationwide with a growth of jobs of more than 1% in the last 12 months, but is also 1 of 8 states whose unemployment has gone up by 0.6% or more in the same time period. And its labor force numbers are especially weird in light of what the payrolls numbers say.

June 2025-June 2026
Minnesota
Change in Jobs +45,900
Change in Labor Force -39,100
Change in Employed -56,400
Change in Unemployed +17,300
Change in Unemployment Rate +0.6%

That all can’t be true, unless cities like Hudson and Superior have become the biggest commuter communities in America, and/or Minnesota has had a massive increase of people working second jobs while a lot of others have none.

Illinois is a more negative version of the same story - recession-level numbers in the household survey, but growth in payrolls.

June 2025-June 2026
Illinois
Change in Jobs +9,200
Change in Labor Force -57,000
Change in Employed -102,800
Change in Unemployed +45,800
Change in Unemployment Rate +0.8%

We will likely have to wait a couple of months where we find out what the “gold standard” Quarterly Census of Employment of Wages (QCEW) says, which will lead to preliminary benchmarking of jobs through this March, which will be announced at the end of August. That’ll give an indication whether Minnesota’s (and America’s) payrolls or household surveys are closer to reality.

On the other side, take a look at Iowa and Indiana, who are reporting losses of jobs while having unemployment go down.

June 2025-June 2026
Iowa
Change in Jobs -9,500
Change in Labor Force -6,100
Change in Employed 0
Change in Unemployed -6,100
Change in Unemployment Rate -0.3%

Indiana
Change in Jobs -4,000
Change in Labor Force -18,300
Change in Employed -2,600
Change in Unemployed -15,700
Change in Unemployment Rate -0.4%

I suppose those numbers could be true if there were a large-scale exodus of working-age people going on from those two (red) states, but I think it’s more likely that there will be changes to make these two bits of data have a closer correspondence once benchmarking happens. Yes, sometimes the numbers diverge, but it's really weird to see things be this far off from each other.

And until we get more clarity, it's hard to figure out if the Midwest jobs market is one where jobs are growing and things are OK, or if people are exiting the work force with few replacing them, or if it is an outright recession for everyday people that isn't showing up in the payrolls numbers supplied to various state Workforce Development departments.

June gains wrap up a good first half for jobs in 2026 for Wisconsin

After a tough 2025, Wisconsin has had a good recovery in the jobs market. That was retierated in the recent report for June from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.

Employment – There were 3,030,100 people employed in Wisconsin, up 6,000 over the month and up 16,600 over the year.
• Labor Force – The state’s labor force participation rate ticked up to 64.5% which is 3.0 percentage points above the national rate of 61.5%.
• Nonfarm Jobs – The total nonfarm jobs in the state were 3,041,000, an increase of 2,400 over last month.
• Unemployment – The state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate ticked down to 3.3%, which is 0.9 percentage points below the national unemployment rate of 4.2%.

That increase of 2,400 nonfarm jobs includes an increase of 3,000 in the private sector, which now puts Wisconsin at a new record high for private sector jobs.

Even the one area in Wisconsin that had significant seasonally-adjusted “losses” in June (Construction -2,100), was shown as a reflection of lower-than-usual Summer hiring (+3,200), and followed a May where 3,000 jobs were added on a seasonal adjusted basis and 9,500 added in raw numbers. Put those two months together, and Construction had a seasonally adjusted 900 jobs added, and it continues a good trend that we've had in that sector for the last 4 1/2 years in our state.

In another sector that has high levels of seasonal jobs, Leisure and Hospitality had a large jump in April, indicating that seasonal hiring started early. But it has stayed at that higher level in May and June, which isn't what you'd expect if it was merely Summer hiring being pulled forward.

Manufacturing also has had a rebound in employment reported so far for 2026, after consistent losses from 2023 through 2025.

For the household survey, the unemployment rate declined 0.1% in Wisconsin (from 3.4% in May to 3.3%in June) as it did in America as a whole (from 4.3% to 4.2%). But it was for very different reasons, as Wisconsin defied the national trends by growing its labor force by even more than it typically does at the start of Summer, up by 3,300 on a seasonally adjusted basis and 71,800 in reality. That was during a month where the US saw its seasonally-adjusted work force shrink by 720,000. Wisconsin also saw more people list themselves as employed (+6,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis) while the US had 507,000 fewer people say they were working.

Assuming these numbers hold up, that's a really good first half of the year in our state for both adding jobs, and adding work force in general. Both had been categories that the state had struggled with in 2024 and 2025, and it might explain why economic sentiment seems much worse nationwide than the conditions on the ground in Wisconsin might indicate.

"Good" June retail sales were only in a few places, and outlook for July getting worse

Saw this headline relating to an economic report from last Friday, and I thought it summed up a lot.

Retail sales increased 0.2% in June 2026, the weakest monthly gain since early in the year. This deceleration shows that headline spending cooled after a stronger May. The pattern also aligns with broader signals of moderation across goods categories.

Gasoline-driven drag on totals: Receipts at gasoline stations fell 5.3% as average pump prices dropped sharply. This decline reduced headline growth but did not reflect weaker demand. Instead, it was a price effect that temporarily pulled down top-line sales. The decline in pump prices echoed a fall from $4.61 to $4.18 per gallon during June.

Core categories point to resilience: Ex‑gasoline retail sales rose a much stronger 0.7%, with notable gains in autos, nonstore retail, and various discretionary categories. This indicates consumers were still spending, especially in areas less affected by fuel prices. The breadth of these increases suggests the underlying demand backdrop remains solid.

But then you look at the actual report, and the growth in non-gas sales doesn't happen for most of the retail economy.

Change in retail sales, June 2026
Motor vehicle/parts dealers +2.640 billion
Gas/gas stations -3.372 billion
Non-store retailers +2.699 billion
All other retail categories -0.290 billion

And "all other retail categories" accounted for 55% of all retail sales in May. If a majority of retail sales are going down in the aggregate, in a time when those prices outside of gasoline are still generally growing, that's not a good number.

But because gas prices declined through early July due to optimism (rolls eyes) about peace in the Middle East and resulting increases in oil supplies coming, consumers have been in a better mood.

The University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers said on Friday its Consumer Sentiment Index rose to 54.4 this month, the highest reading since February, from a final reading of 49.5 in June. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the index rising to 51.0. The survey was conducted from June 23 to July 13, with more than 70% of interviews completed before the collapse of the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran last week, which pushed oil prices to a one-month high. Gasoline prices have risen in response.

Oh? So maybe things are different now because national gas prices are set to go back over $4 a gallon this week? And as UW-Madison's Menzie Chinn points out in Econbrowser, just because consumer sentiment was up in June and early July, it doesn't mean people think things are going well, and the trend is still negative over the last year.

Because of the contined consumer spending through June and the break in gas prices lowering inflation last month, it's likely that we see a solid GDP growth figure around 2% when 2nd quarter numbers are released in 11 days. But what seemed like a one-time annoyance of high gas prices is more likely to be several more weeks of gas prices exceeding or near multi-year highs. We also are now facing a food safety scare that will take produce off the market and likely suppress demand in general, and numerous weather events hitting before the main US hurricane season even begins.

It makes the "inflation has peaked and the economy will keep rolling" takes that I've been seeing following last week's CPI and PPI reports sound very premature, if not outright stupid. Q3 is not off to a good start, and the outlook seems more likely to be bad than good. So watch for June's optimism to quickly reverse as Trump's War cranks back up, health insurance costs are set to go up by double digits, and nothing better is coming along.

Trump/Tiffany FEMA help falls short, and state/locals pick up the difference

You may recall this from a couple of weeks ago.

When severe weather hit Wisconsin, I called the White House to help secure the federal support our state needs.

Thank you to President Trump and his administration for their partnership. We’ll keep working to ensure every Wisconsin community has the resources needed to recover. pic.twitter.com/KxJiTMnBhl

— Tom Tiffany (@TomTiffanyWI) June 30, 2026

Naturally, Trump and Tiffany left out that it was Tony Evers' Administration that gathered the information on the damage estimates and sent it on to FEMA. And now in typical Trump/GOP fashion, the reality of what this aid ends up being is short of what the social media posts claimed.

Sure, FEMA allowed for home and property owners to recover damages from the severe weather, and while that money will assist in paying for infrastructure and other public improvements in some of the affected areas, but others were left out.

The June 30, 2026, major disaster declaration FEMA-4923-DR authorized Individual Assistance for Bayfield, Brown, Buffalo, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Marathon, Milwaukee, Outagamie, Racine, Rock, Sauk, Vernon, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, and Winnebago Counties and the Oneida Nation and Public Assistance for Iowa, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, Kewaunee, Outagamie, Rock, Vernon, and Waupaca Counties and the Oneida Nation.

The impact to individuals and households and the infrastructure was significant in the areas designated for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance. However, based on the results of the joint, federal, state, and local government Preliminary Damage Assessments, it has been determined that the impact to the infrastructure in Bayfield, Manitowoc, Marathon, and Racine Counties is not of the severity and magnitude to warrant their designation for Public Assistance under FEMA-4923- DR. In addition, it has been determined that your request for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is not warranted. Therefore, your request for Public Assistance for Bayfield, Manitowoc, Marathon, and Racine Counties and Hazard Mitigation statewide is denied.

Evers says he will appeal that denial of public assistance, and while local GOP Assembly members expressed disappointment, I have yet to hear a word about this from the guy who wants to replace Evers as Governor, Congressman Tom Tiffany. That’s despite Marathon and Bayfield counties being in Tiffany’s district, in a job he is still pulling 6 figures and benefits for.

And in a matter of interesting timing, the Wisconsin Policy Forum released a report this week on disaster aids and payments in Wisconsin. First of all, the Policy Forum notes that while there is a minimum amount of damage that does have to be met for FEMA aid, there is also no requirement to give aid no matter how much damage happens.

There is no specific dollar threshold that must be cleared to guarantee a major disaster declaration. Instead, disaster recovery must be “beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond.” There are damage rates per capita that define the minimum thresholds for eligibility. For Wisconsin as a whole, the 2025 threshold was $11.4 million in damage to public property, while for Milwaukee County the minimum was $4.5 million. These are eligibility minimums, but federal law gives broad discretion over these requests to the president, who can decide which parts to approve. Once approved, these declarations make direct aid available to local individuals and governments.

The previous disaster declaration prior to this week was for the storms and record flooding in August, where the Trump Administration allowed aid for individuals in three counties in the Milwaukee metro area, similar to the individual assistance given out from the April floods. The Policy Forum says this has resulted in a large amount of help being sent over to southeastern Wisconsin.

According to FEMA data, nearly 46,000 residents of Waukesha, Washington, and Milwaukee counties applied for individual assistance from FEMA following the August 2025 floods. Milwaukee County residents accounted for over 91% of those requests. As of June 2026, more than $210 million in aid had been distributed to 36,800 eligible applicants across the three counties. Figure 3 shows that property damage was concentrated on Milwaukee’s northwest side.

B But there was nothing given out by the Trump Administration for streets and lands that may have washed away in those record rains of August, or to deal with tree removal or many of the other public needs that resulted from that severe weather event. This led to an additional $16.9 million in state funds being requested by the Evers Administration and approved by the Joint Finance Committee in May, for the amount of weather-related damage claims that had happened in the 2026 Fiscal Year.

However, there is only $3 million in state funds available for disaster assistance in the 2027 Fiscal Year, which started 2 weeks ago. And now there are at least four counties that need additional help to clean up from the tornadoes, floods and severe storms from this April. We also know that there were tornadoes and hurricane-level winds on the 3rd of July that killed 3 children in Lake Geneva due to a capsizing boat, and caused damage and destruction to numerous buildings in the southeastern corner of the state.

Evers has yet to send in a request for disaster aid from that set of storms, and while today’s historically bad air quality doesn’t do a lot of damage to buildings or infrastructure, it will limit a lot of activities around the state for the next couple of days, and does remind us that even weather in other parts of the world can have its effects on our economy. Which is also something that Trump and Tiffany do not especially seem interested in dealing with, and often outright deny is going on.

With property values and the costs of construction and repair continuing to go up, these weather disasters are likely to continue to cost more. That's not even accounting for the increase in intensity and frequency for these types of things (for example, Wisconsin has already had 2 of its top 6 years for tornadoes in 2025 and 2026). Which means that when the Trump Administration refuses to give full assistance to states like Wisconsin, it's the state and local governments that have to pay more. And that's not something Tom Tiffany wants voters to know, but it needs to be said.