Trump and Fitz desperately try to change the blame for their GOP idiocy on health care

Republicans continue to flail in the wake of huge jumps in out-of-pocket costs for Obamacare insurance, and their stupefying refusal to restore the subisidies that would cut the amount that everyday Americans would pay for that insurance.

So now their latest strategy is to....blame insurance companies?

An unserious man

[image or embed]

— Daniel A Collier, PhD (@dcollier74.bsky.social) November 8, 2025 at 9:55 AM

So instead of making insurance companies compete at scale and have consumers choose what is best for them, Trump wants to give Americans a VOUCHER to go to insurance companies, and not have any baseline services required or any controls on the costs of those insurance policies?

We already tried this idea, with Paul Ryan in the 2010s.

This VOUCHERcare idea from Trump sounds familiar. Oh yeah! Here it is! www.americanprogress.org/article/ryan... @pamherd.bsky.social @bbkogan.bsky.social

[image or embed]

— jakemadtown.bsky.social (@jakemadtown.bsky.social) November 8, 2025 at 10:39 AM

Ryan's plan was so flawed and ridiculous that it was laughed out of the room and never brought up for a vote because the idea was so toxic.

We got a similar kind of deflection from the Koched-up insurrectionist piece of human garbage known as Wisconsin Congressman Scott Fitzgerald, who shrugs and says ending the tax credits really didn't raise premiums that much anyway.

According to the Paragon Health Institute, the end of those temporary subsidies accounts for only 3-4% of projected premium increases for a typical Obamacare plan in 2026, with most of the increases being driven by other factors like the lingering effects of inflation and new innovative but expensive drugs and technology. Even without the enhanced COVID-era subsidies, the federal government will still cover more than 80% of premiums for most enrollees through the regular subsidies.

It's cute to see Fitzgerald use a study from the Paragon Institute as evidence that dumping the tax credits aren't a reason for the premium hikes, because the Paragon Institute is a Koched-up RW front group whose only goal is to wreck Obamacare any way they can.

After those alternate facts from Troll Scotty, we continue with Rep. Fitzgerald's flop-sweaty justifications.

It's true that some enrollees with incomes just above four times the federal poverty level will see higher costs because they lose eligibility for premium subsidies. But that group is small, only about 7% of all Exchange enrollees according to KFF. The Urban Institute estimates the uninsured rate for these families would rise by only 5%, because many can access employer coverage or are willing to pay the full premium.

Most enrollees, those with incomes under 250% of the federal poverty level who receive the largest subsidies and make up about three-quarters of all Exchange enrollees would see premiums rise by only around $62.50 per month, according to the Urban Institute. This is far from the “doubling” scare the Democrats are pushing.

In addition to the fact that there have been numerous reports around the state and country about people paying more than double for their insurance vs what they're paying now, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 38% of Wisconsinites that receive insurance through the exchanges have incomes about 250% of the poverty line, or more than 121,000 of those insured. That's not 25% Fitz, and it is not an insignificant number of people.

Let's also go back to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates and see what they had to say about what the lack of tax credits are doing to people's costs.

CBO also estimates that gross premiums for benchmark plans in the marketplaces would be 7.6 percent lower, on average, in each year from 2026 to 2035, relative to baseline projections. (The premium estimates reflect the amount before the tax credit is applied.) The estimated decline in benchmark premiums is the result of the expectation that people enrolling in the marketplaces would be healthier on average if the expanded premium tax credit were extended.

That's basically double the increase what Fitzgerald's stink tank claims, and Fitzgerald also neglects to mention that the higher premiums also mean higher taxpayer costs for those who still are eligible for the tax credits.

In addition, employer-based insurance will likely become more expensive (and likely has, if you checked your open enrollment info), as some people decide to choose that over Obamacare, or go uninsured and have more expensive services when they use emergency rooms instead of regular check-ups. In both cases, those (often sicker or older) individuals can drive up overall costs for the insurance company, who then raise everyone else's premiums.

Fitzgerald also gives a zombie lie about Democrats wanting to give ACA coverage to illegal immigrants (this is both not true and disallowed under the ACA). And then he claims that the expansion of the tax credits that lowered costs for everyday Americans was a distortion, and that allowing them to expire is just the way things should work out. OK Scotty, you tell Wisconsinites whose out-of-pocket premium costs have doubled that it's just something they should suck up.

Somehow, the GOP thinks they can use the higher premiums caused by their negligence and arrogance as a reason to get of the Obamacare exchanges. And while I'm all about hating insurance companies, using that earned hatred to mess up the ACA seems like an idiotic strategy. As tens of millions of Americans have gotten insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, the ACA's favorability has continued to climb, to the point that it is liked by a nearly 2-1 margin.

Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress points out that there is a consistency with what Trump/GOP is doing here.

The new GOP talking point again premium tax credits is an argument against *all* demand-side assistance. Don’t help people buy health insurance because money flows to insurers? That’s also an argument against SNAP and WIC — dollars flow to grocery stores. Just an excuse to not help people.

— Bobby Kogan (@bbkogan.bsky.social) November 8, 2025 at 3:20 PM

This is what the Republicans want for the vast majority of Americans. To have us beholden to businesses who are able to limit the options consumers have, allowing a chosen few to dictate the costs and choices to the rest of us. In reality, if we are really concerned about unchecked power of insurance companies to raise premiums and get profits from government subsidies, there are two things yhay can be done.

1. Have a baseline government-run insurance policy that also appears on the Obamacare exchanges, which limits the rate of profit and overhead. Call it a public competition, or extra option, or something like that.

2. There's an even easier way to take soulless, corportate insurance companies out of the equation.

#MedicareForAll

[image or embed]

— Lara7CA (@laravp7.bsky.social) November 9, 2025 at 12:57 PM

Let's ask all Republicans on the Hill if they really want to deal with the remaining flaw of the Affordable Care Act - the fact that it still relies on private insurance companies to offer the health coverage and options that Americans need.

ADP says US gained private sector jobs in October. But overall picture is bad, and set to get worse

Without regular data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other government agencies, we have to look at other data for information on how the US jobs market looks. And we got a bit of news on Thursday that indicated things had taken a downward turn.

Last month was the worst October for layoff announcements since 2003 as companies slashed roles to save money, pared back pandemic-era hires, and planned ahead for artificial intelligence, according to the global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Employers announced 153,074 cuts last month, compared to 55,597 cuts in October 2024. Last month’s figure was “the highest total for October in over 20 years, and the highest total for a single month in the fourth quarter since 2008,” Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a report Thursday.

Altogether, US firms announced the end of 1,099,500 positions through the first 10 months of this year, up 44% from the 761,358 cuts seen for the entirety of 2024. Technology businesses led private-sector layoffs.

“October’s pace of job cutting was much higher than average for the month,” Challenger said in a statement.

“Some industries are correcting after the hiring boom of the pandemic, but this comes as AI adoption, softening consumer and corporate spending, and rising costs drive belt-tightening and hiring freezes,” he continued. “Those laid off now are finding it harder to quickly secure new roles, which could further loosen the labor market.”

That's not good at all, although I'll note that those are jobs ANNOUNCEMENTS, which means the actual job losses will come later, so we wouldn't be seeing that show up in unemployment claims or the unemployment rate for a few months.

The report on added layoffs came one day after some positive jobs news from one of the only other sources of jobs market news during the Federal government shutdown.

Private-sector job creation bounced back in October, according to a snapshot of the labor market that has become more closely watched in the absence of official federal jobs data.

Payroll processing company ADP on Wednesday estimated that private-sector businesses added an estimated 42,000 jobs last month, a swing into positive territory after back-to-back months of job losses.

While October marked a return to job growth, ADP’s chief economist cautioned that the pace of hiring is running far slower than earlier this year and far more concentrated in a few sectors….

The largest job gains were spread across industries such as trade, transportation and utilities (+47,000 jobs); education and health services (+26,000); and financial activities (+11,000), ADP reported.

Those posting the biggest job losses were information (17,000 jobs lost), professional and business services (15,000 jobs lost), and leisure and hospitality (6,000 jobs lost).

Yes, the 42,000 gain makes up for the losses in the previuous 2 months, but as you can see, 2025 has seen private job growth slow to near zero after increases in the previous 2 years.

What's worth mentioning along with ADP's small gain in private sector jobs in October is that if we had a regular jobs report tomorrow, we'd see the full effect of DOGE's deferred resignation program for federal employees. Between 100,000 and 150,000 workers chose to leave federal service, but were still receiving pay through the end of the Federal Fiscal Year on September 30, which means they would not show up as "unemployed" in the official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics until October's report.

Put those public sector losses together with other reported job info, and UW-Madison's Menzie Chinn projects that October's jobs report would have shown a notable decline in payroll numbers, if we would have had a report coming out.

Maybe that's another reason Trump/GOP seems to be OK with doing nothing to end the shutdown. It doesn't just keep the Epstein files under wraps, it also has allowed for the last two months of subpar jobs reports to be hidden from the public as well.

Polls and politicians should adjust after last night, and know WisDems are in a good spot

Yesterday’s results in elections were a clear win for Democrats pretty much across the board. Yes, smaller sample size than a Congressional midterm or Presidential election, but it’s also not nothing, especially in the large margin of the Democratic wins in the places they won in.

It also brought me back to last month’s Marquette Law School Poll, which had an electorate set up this way.

That may seem lopsided, but it is not much different than what the adjusted exit polls indicated that Party ID was in Wisconsin for 2024’s election.

But an R+3 or R+4 electorate isn’t what we saw in Virginia and New Jersey yesterday, which showed a strong shift to Democrats. That matches up with a finding that Gallup had in July which showed a nationwide change in Party ID from R+4 to D+3 by this Summer.

And those surveys took place before the shutdown and hike in Obamacare premiums and ICE getting further out of control. All of which have seen Republicans sit on their hands and avoid doing anything about any of these unpopular things that they are 100% in ownership of. So I can’t think those Party ID numbers are any better now.

But let’s be charitable to the GOP and only turn Wisconsin’s electorate from R+4 to one evenly split between the 2 parties (call it 33.5% to 33.5%), with the same 25% of Independents and 8% of “Other/No preference” (which is lumped together as “Independents”. Then take the answers among those groups from the recent Marquette Poll. Start with Trump approval, which has the following crosstabs.

That pushes Trump’s approval-disapproval down around 44-54 from 46-53. It’s only a 3-point difference, but you also can’t say things haven’t changed from where Trump's approval was last year.

And if you’re a Republican in the Wisconsin Legislature, an even split between Dems and Republicans next November puts you in big trouble, because the voters of the state don't like what the GOPs have been doing while in control of both houses.

Now, you may remember that I had the same criticism about the GOP +5 tilt of Chuckly Franklin’s final pre-election poll in 2024, and it turned out that he correctly modeled the young bros and other casuals that would come out and ID as Republican or Independent.

But the polls in Virginia and New Jersey badly missed the shift to Dems in both Party ID and results last night (by 4 points in VA and 7 in NJ). It's also worth noting that Dems gained 9 and 7 points in yesterday’s Governor races in VA and NJ compared to Kamala Harris’ 6-point wins in each of those states last year.

Again, I’ll be conservative and give half that shift to Wisconsin (we may be different, but we’re not that different here), and that would translate to a 4-point move and a relatively comfortable win of more than 3% in 2026 for Dems at the top of the ticket here. So what did the map look like for Tony Evers’ 3.5% win from 2022 with the new districts in place? Let’s go to Dave’s Redistricting and find out.

Here’s the Congressional map.

See that Evers won District 3 (by 49.6-49.1)? Then add in the fact that GOP incumbent Derrick Van Orden beat Rebecca Cooke by 4.5% less than Trump beat Harris in District 3, and you gotta think Cooke is favored in a rematch. And Evers only lost District 1 by 0.2%, which means GOP Bryan Steil is in big trouble for re-election if he's strongly contested in a similar type of year.

And if the shift is a VA-NJ-level of 7-9%? Coffee Boy Steil is likely gone unless he is somehow thought of as different as Trump and the other GOPs in DC - which would be quite a trick when he chairs the powerful House Administration Committee and is standing next to Mike Johnson and other House GOP Leaders when they are saying garbage like this about peaceful No Kings participants.

Emmer: "This is about one thing and one thing alone -- to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold a hate America rally in DC next week."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) October 10, 2025 at 9:25 AM

Yeah, Steil ain't going to be able to separate himself from them.

And just like how Virginia Democrats got a near-supermajority in their lower house during last night's elections, you'd have to think Dems would be set to win further down the ticket if they're winning at the top. So let's look at how Evers did in his 3.5% victory in the State Senate districts, and keep in mind that only odd-numbered districts are up in 2026.

That means Dems should be favored in districts 5, 17, and 21, which are currently held by Republicans. If Dems flip those 3, they run the Senate 18-15.

And here’s the State Assembly.

. That one blue dot on the other side of the vertical line means that Evers won 50 of the state's 99 districts as he was winning the state by 3.5%

Considering the Democratic overperformance basically everywhere last night, you have to think the potential of a Democratic trifecta in Wisconsin in 2026 has become just a bit more likely.

— Dan Shafer (@danshafer.bsky.social) November 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM

It's definitely in play.

Obviously a lot can and will happen in the next year, so don’t assume the Dems have an easy glide into power for 2026. But winning the whole enchilada sure seems possible, along with a pickup of at least 1-2 seats in the US House. And if I was an elected Republican in Madison or DC, I’d definitely look for ways not to be a feckless Trumper in the coming months.

Trump/GOPs screwing up, screwing around on SNAP, and benefits won't be out for a while

Just wanted to give a little accumulation of information on the SNAP situation.

First of all, it's indisputable that the law says the Trump Administration has to release these funds for SNAP, and that the money has been set aside. Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress, who knows a helluva lot more about budget stuff than I do, shows us the actual words on the paper.

Again, here's the *entire* text for the SNAP contingency fund. It says it's for when you need it for carry out program operations. It doesn't say "it's for when there's some money but not enough." Give me a fucking break. It can obviously be used on benefits during a shutdown.

[image or embed]

— Bobby Kogan (@bbkogan.bsky.social) October 31, 2025 at 11:46 AM

See that? There are extra funds set aside in case there aren't funds allocated to SNAP short-term, and they are good through September 30 of next year. The money is there.

Kogan also does a good rundown of the timeline and the confusing and often contradictory messages that the Trump Admin were sending out in relation to SNAP.

-Sep 30: USDA releases guidance saying they can use contingency fund -Oct 10: USDA tells states to prepare for lapse -Oct 23: USDA deletes guidance saying they can use contingency fund -Oct 24: USDA says it can’t use contingency fund -Oct 31: Courts tell USDA to release funds -Nov 1: no funds go out

— Bobby Kogan (@bbkogan.bsky.social) November 3, 2025 at 8:31 AM

Courts required the Trump Admin to send some of the contingency funds for SNAP. Well, at least some of it.

For the past two days, the administration has said in public statements and court filings that it will at least partially fund the program this month after US District Judge John McConnell’s ruling that the agencies should tap emergency funds to pay for food stamps…

One day earlier, the Justice Department said in a court filing the administration was working “diligently” to comply with a ruling last week from McConnell, a Rhode Island-based judge, requiring officials to at least partially fund SNAP.

The Agriculture Department, which administers the program, planned to “deplete” $4.65 billion in contingency money and provide recipients with 50% of the amount eligible households normally receive in November, the filing said. It also warned that recalculating benefits would be time-consuming.

But that means states and other administrators of SNAP benefits need to adjust how much each recipient gets, and that will mean that even the partial benefits for November will not be able to be used this month. This includes the SNAP recipients in Wisconsin.

Department of Health Services officials said because food stamp recipients' benefits will be reduced due to the partial funding, the state must wait for guidance from the Trump administration on how to move forward and then recalculate more than 367,000 households' benefits because the amount is lower than normal. That will take "weeks instead of days," the officials said….

If the Trump administration had fully funded the program, state government officials across the country would not have needed to overhaul their systems and benefits would have been delivered more quickly, according to Patrick Penn, a U.S. Department of Agriculture official who oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

"Providing the full month of benefits would not have created the same unique challenges and delays," the Wisconsin officials wrote in an email to reporters.

Even worse, the Journal-Sentinel article says that the Trump Administration thought about moving money from school meal subsidies to pay for the full month of SNAP benefits. Then, they realized that would be even worse to shove the burdens onto school districts and school kids, and they backed off.

"USDA has determined that creating a shortfall in Child Nutrition Program funds to fund one month of SNAP benefits is an unacceptable risk, even considering the procedural difficulties with delivering a partial November SNAP payment, because shifting $4 billion dollars to America’s SNAP population merely shifts the problem to millions of America’s low income children that receive their meals at school," Penn wrote.

It’s yet another self-inflicted wound from the dimwits in the White House, as a conscious choice to not use these funds that were set aside by law.

I can't think Trump/GOP is winning on this, but they figured Dems would cave as the Trumpers pointed the gun at Americans that need SNAP. But Trump/GOP have been wrong on their calculus and their tactics throughout this shutdown, and it's why basically anyone that's not a MAGAt living in BubbleWorld is putting the blame on Republicans. We will see if some of that blame bears out in the elections that we have tonight.

Manufacturing slump continues in October

We don’t get much economic data these days with the government still shut down, so when any bit of information comes out from other places, it’s grabbed onto more. And the information from an index of US manufacturing activity shows that things were going mostly the same way that they were before the shutdown.

The report was issued today by Susan Spence, MBA, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.

“The Manufacturing PMI® registered 48.7 percent in October, a 0.4-percentage point decrease compared to the reading of 49.1 percent recorded in September. The overall economy continued in expansion for the 66th month after one month of contraction in April 2020. (A Manufacturing PMI® above 42.3 percent, over a period of time, generally indicates an expansion of the overall economy.) The New Orders Index contracted for the second month in October following one month of growth; the figure of 49.4 percent is 0.5 percentage point higher than the 48.9 percent recorded in September. The October reading of the Production Index (48.2 percent) is 2.8 percentage points lower than September’s figure of 51 percent. The Prices Index remained in expansion (or ‘increasing’ territory), registering 58 percent, down 3.9 percentage points compared to the reading of 61.9 percent reported in September. The Backlog of Orders Index registered 47.9 percent, up 1.7 percentage points compared to the 46.2 percent recorded in September. The Employment Index registered 46 percent, up 0.7 percentage point from September’s figure of 45.3 percent….

“The New Export Orders Index reading of 44.5 percent is 1.5 percentage points higher than the reading of 43 percent registered in September. The Imports Index registered 45.4 percent, 0.7 percentage point higher than September’s reading of 44.7 percent.”

Now, if you didn’t know better, you’d say this indicates improvements from September. But that’s not true. It meant manufacturing activity kept declining in October and prices kept going up, just not as badly as they were in September.

The ISM report goes on to say that some sectors had significant declines last month.

“Looking at the manufacturing economy, 58 percent of the sector’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted in October, down from 67 percent in September, however; the percent of GDP in strong contraction (registering a composite PMI® of 45 percent or lower), is at 41 percent, up 13 percent from September. The share of sector GDP with a PMI® at or below 45 percent is a good metric to gauge overall manufacturing weakness. Of the six largest manufacturing industries, only two (Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Transportation Equipment) expanded in October,” says Spence.

And “strong contraction” is when you are more likely to see sizable job losses, vs muddling through some doldrums.

While it's nice to put the numbers to things, I think this rundown at the top of the ISM report sums it well.

So should I assume manufacturing was one of the sectors the Treasury Secretary was talking about this weekend?

TAPPER: Do you agree that the US is at risk of a recession? BESSENT: I believe we are in a transition period here. I think we're in good shape, but there are sectors of the economy that are in recession

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 2, 2025 at 8:19 AM

WisGOPs choosing vouchers over public schools + less lottery playing = higher property taxes in Wis

2 weeks ago, the Department of Public Instruction released their General Aid payments for 2025-26, and it showed that nearly 3/4 of Wisconsin districts will be dealing with less General Aid from the state for this school year.

When combined with Governor Evers’ creative veto from 2023 that permitted increased resources for K-12 Wisconsin districts, that means those extra funds would have to come in the form of higher property taxes for those 3/4 of school districts in this year.

This is where I remind you that Evers wanted to pay for those extra K-12 resources with added state aids and related measures in his 2025-27 state budget, which the Legislative Fiscal Bureau said at the time would have kept property taxes back near last year’s levels.

But the WisGOPs in the Legislature didn’t go along with those ideas, and added $0 in General Aids for each of the upcoming 2 years. So the Legislative Fiscal Bureau updated those estimates after the budget was signed, and said the WisGOP (in)action on the budget raised gross school property taxes by $354.0 million for this year, and overall property taxes would rise by an additional $164 on the median-priced Wisconsin home for this year, and another $116 in December 2026.

Bad enough, but guess what state payments did get increased in our state budget! The money going to private (and often religious) voucher schools. As the LFB notes in its summary of K-12 education funding:

Under the [budget], the per pupil payment for K-8 pupils is estimated to increase from $10,237 in 2024-25 to $10,877 in 2025-26 and $11,305 in 2026-27, and the per pupil payment for 9-12 pupils is estimated to increase from $12,731 in 2024-25 to $13,371 in 2025-26 and $13,799 in 2026-27.

Milwaukee students receiving vouchers are entirely state funded, but vouchers for kids in all other parts of Wisconsin are paid for in a different way – by cutting the funding for the public school district where the kid lives in. Even if the kid never attended a day of public schools.

If you check out DPI’s rundown, you’ll see that $394.5 million is being taken away from Wisconsin’s public schools to pay for these vouchers this year.

And outside of Milwaukee, this ends up raising the property taxes of Wisconsinites because the public schools are allowed to do that in order to make up for the state funds being taken away from the district the voucher kid lives in. And given that the amount of students given vouchers and the amount of voucher payments continue to rise, this keeps adding to the property tax burden.

Another reason Wisconsinites are likely to face rising property tax bills is that the state’s lottery tax credit is going to be less for this year, as the Legislative Fiscal Bureau recently confirmed.

In 2025(26), with available proceeds of $293,929,700, an estimated average tax credit of $190 would be extended to eligible properties with values in excess of the credit base value, to be established by DOR prior to November 20 of each year. In 2024(25), the corresponding average tax credit was $207, based on the amount certified by the Committee in October, 2024. The decline in the estimated average credit is attributable to a projected decrease in ticket sales in 2025-26 of $21.6 million, compared to 2024-25. Actual lottery sales can vary from estimates, especially in the case of jackpot games like Powerball and Mega Millions, which are strongly driven by the size and number of high jackpots.

This now means that Wisconsin's lottery credit has declined in 3 of the last 4 years.

The LFB went on to explain that part of the reason for the lower reductions in property taxes is that people haven’t been spending on lottery tickets like they were 5 years ago. Even with blips such as September’s $1.8 billion Powerball jackpot that led to a rush of sales, the Fiscal Bureau thinks that declining trend will continue.

Lottery ticket sales were generally higher, both in Wisconsin and nationwide, through the COVID-19 pandemic and in the years since. Higher advertised jackpots for games such as Mega Millions and Powerball also contributed to increased revenues during this period. However, despite remaining high compared to pre-pandemic years, ticket sales have generally decreased since 2022- 23. Sales of scratch tickets in particular are expected to decrease by 5% in 2025-26, compared to 2024-25 sales. Moreover, high jackpots, and the associated increases in sales, did not occur at the same rate in 2024-25 as in previous years. The revised estimate of lottery sales projects that sales of lotto (jackpot) tickets will increase in 2025-26 by approximately 3.4%, compared to sales of these tickets 2024-25. However, much of this growth is driven by actual sales of Powerball tickets resulting from a large jackpot in early 2025-26. Sales of other lotto games are expected to decrease slightly in 2025-26. In particular, the price of a single play Mega Millions ticket increased from $2 to $5 in April, 2025, which has initially softened demand for those tickets. Finally, slower growth in real personal income, as well as increased competition from online sports gambling and illegal and gray market gaming, are expected to affect demand for lottery tickets.

That trend sure makes me wonder if tying lottery proceeds to property tax reductions is the best use of these funds. Especially when you look at how lottery proceeds are used in other states, where it often goes to K-12 education (including in Wisconsin neighbors Illinois and Michigan), veterans assistance (including Illinois and Iowa), and to add resources and/or cut taxes that go to the state’s general fund (including Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota).

And perhaps using lottery proceeds for K-12 education and/or the state general fund would be a way to take pressure off of both property taxes and state aids for funding Wisconsin schools. Because what’s happening today under the funneling of state funds to vouchers and the lessening amount of lottery credits isn’t working when it comes to keeping property taxes down. And that’ll become especially apparent when many of us get our bills in the mail in just over a month.

After this week's rate cut, the Fed seems to be confused on what's next

Given that there has been a blackout of large amounts of economic data during the federal government's shutdown (other than a report last week showing US inflation was up to 3% over the previous 12 months), the Federal Reserve's Open Markets Committee had its meeting this week under unusual circumstances. So what info did they go on, and what did they decide to do?

Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace. Job gains have slowed this year, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August; more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. Inflation has moved up since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated.

The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. The Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that downside risks to employment rose in recent months.

In support of its goals and in light of the shift in the balance of risks, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point to 3-3/4 to 4 percent. In considering additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee decided to conclude the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings on December 1. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.

So the Fed sees higher inflation and a slower job market. That seems like a pretty bad situation.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell met the press after the rate decision was made, and many took notice that Powell mentioned a third rate cut in December "was not a foregone conclusion." When asked about that, the Fed Chair said that an increasing number of FOMC members were saying it may again be time to lay back and see how things play out.

The data and reports that we have been able to see in recent weeks indicates the US economy is still growing, even as the government has shut down and prices keep rising. One day after the Fed meeting, Chairman Powell gave an interesting response on why he thinks that may be.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged Wednesday that the soaring stock market is helping support consumer spending — and the overall economy — right now.

If the market goes down, Powell said, it could hurt consumer spending. But spending wouldn't take a large hit unless the market plunged.

"I think it's certainly a factor supporting consumption right now," Powell said in response to a question asked by Yahoo Finance about how much of consumer spending and the economy hinges on the stock market remaining strong…..

Powell and others have noted the US is in a "bifurcated economy": Lower-income individuals are pulling back on spending, while wealthy individuals benefiting from market run-ups continue to drive spending — perhaps keeping the economy afloat.

According to a September analysis by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, Americans in the bottom 80% of the income distribution — those making less than $175,000 a year — are barely keeping their spending on pace with inflation. Meanwhile, the top 20% of consumers are growing their spending.

So what's keeping our economy afloat is an AI bubble that has a lot of belief in future activity, but so far hasn't resulted in much of anything that has improved everyday people’s lives. That's not a healthy situation.

It also helps to explain why US consumer confidence continues to fall even as records are being set on Wall Street. Regular Americans aren’t seeing the boost to their wages or job prospects that they had a couple of years ago, but inflation continues to rise at a higher rate than we had this time last year – when we were told inflation was so awful that enough swing/low-info voters got Donald Trump back to the White House on the issue.

And if stocks keep rising, that would be all the more reason to stop the rate cuts, to avoid further borrowing and speculation in an already overvalued market. Which means that the only way we should be seeing rate cuts in December is because we've seen a pickup in layoffsm the real economy has gone toward recession, and/or the stock market has lost a sizable amount of their 2025 gains. Yet the coked-up traders on Wall Street don't seem to understand this, and think that the party's just going to continue.

Cutting Wisconsinites off of SNAP is not only evil, it's dumb for WisGOPs and Trump to do.

If you're not paying daily attention to the news, it may be difficult to notice that we are nearly one month into a shutdown of the Federal Government. But a whole lot of people are likely to directly feel effects later this week, as approximately 700,000 Wisconsinites may see their SNAP benefits cut off on Saturday.

Last week, the [US] Agriculture Department issued temporary emergency funds to stabilize the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children in Wisconsin, known as WIC. Even with that boost, however, the National WIC Association said Oct. 21 the funds are rapidly depleting across state agencies, an indication of how needed federal assistance is for vulnerable families….

But in an Oct. 24 memo from the Agriculture Department first reported by Axios, the federal government said it can't legally use contingency funds to pay for food stamps during the government shutdown, nor would it reimburse states that do cover the cost of benefits. Plus, the memo said, any transfers would take away from other funds, such as Child Nutrition Programs and the emergency funds from WIC.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Evers said at a press conference in Racine Oct. 22, can't do anything without federal funds.

"We don't have money for November," Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary Kirsten Johnson, who was also at the Racine press conference, said.

And here is what you see when you go to the Wisconsin DHS website for information on future SNAP benefits, which is also known as Foodshare in our state.

Due to the ongoing federal government shutdown, November benefits for FoodShare members will be delayed. Foodshare benefits are 100 percent funded by the federal government and the shutdown will need to end before members can begin getting benefits again.

During the evening of Friday, October 24, the federal government provided additional information about FoodShare use during the federal shutdown. You may use any benefits currently on your QUEST card in November. To be clear, benefits that are already on your card will not be removed because of the shutdown and you can continue to use your current benefits to buy food during the shutdown.

Of course, if you’ve used up your October benefits on, you know, FEEDING YOUR FAMILY WITH INCREASINGLY COSTLY FOOD, then you’re out of luck.

Let me remind you that after the recently-released CPI numbers, food at home (generally thought of as "groceries") was up 2.5% in the first 9 months of the year, with little sign of slowing down.

In theory, state funds could be added in order to pay for the estimated $115 million for November’s FoodShare costs, but a leader of the Wisconsin Legislature says that will not happen.

Senate President Mary Felzkowski said in an interview on WISN-TV on Sunday that state lawmakers likely won't seek to backfill the federally funded food stamp program with state funding through the government shutdown, which is in its 27th day.

At the same time, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials issued a memo saying contingency funds won't be available to backfill the program, which is part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program…..

State lawmakers could choose to use state funds to cover FoodShare benefits for November, which would require lawmakers to vote to create a new funding appropriation or to expand an existing appropriation to deliver the state funds, according to the fiscal bureau.

Felzkowski, a Republican from Tomahawk, said Sunday that lawmakers are unlikely to do that.

"You know, $114 million is a lot of money. My heart goes out to people, but this is a federal issue. And I don't see the state having the resources to do that," Felzkowski said on WISN-TV's Sunday politics show "Upfront."

Now today, Wisconsin Dems such as Governor Evers joined with 24 other Dem-run states in filing a lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from cutting off these SNAP benefits. And I even noticed that even the typically right-wing Wisconsin Grocers Association has asked that Trump/GOPs allow for SNAP benefits to continue.

“Food security is fundamental to the well-being of every Wisconsin family,” said Mike Semmann, WGA President/CEO, and added, “Grocers across the state – both in urban and rural communities – see firsthand how vital the FoodShare program is for families struggling to make ends meet. We urge policymakers to act swiftly.”

Wisconsin’s grocery workers are on the front lines of serving their communities, and the potential disruption of FoodShare benefits places additional strain on both customers and store employees. The WGA emphasizes that extending food assistance will help maintain stability for families, local grocers, and the broader Wisconsin economy.

“Wisconsin’s grocers remain committed to serving their communities, even as federal inaction creates uncertainty for families who rely on SNAP/FoodShare. This places our frontline grocery teams in the challenging role of explaining these impacts at the checkout. We urge our leaders to act swiftly so grocers can focus on what they do best – helping Wisconsin families put food on the table,” Semmann said.

That statement hints at another reason to continuing SNAP, outside of being a humane thing to not let people go hungry (which is the most important reason). Because it's good for the economy to have people continuing to buy and afford food.

The numbers show that every dollar given to North Texas families for food assistance played a massive role in the economy last year, totaling a 54% return on investment. 🔗 https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-advocates-says-cuts-to-snap-benefits-would-hurt-everyone-21832682 

[image or embed]

— Dallas Observer (@dallasobserver.com) March 1, 2025 at 1:30 PM

It seems like such an own goal for the Trump Administration to choose to cut millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites from food assistance at the same time when they refuse to negotiate on anything that might prevent people from getting cut off. And with the 2nd and 3rd-highest rate of the state's SNAP beneficiaries living in the districts of the 2 Wisconsin House Republicans most likely to lose in 2026 (Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil), you'd think that WisGOPs would care more about this and the blowback that will be coming if those Wisconsinites get cut off.

It almost makes me think that at this point, Dems should walk away and let the bad stuff happen. It's definitely better for electoral purposes, even if it shouldn't be done for human reasons. And maybe it's severe economic pain that's the only way to shake low-info Americans out of their apathy about the bad things that are going on and give the GOP the ass-kicking they deserve.

A bit more money for Wisconsin, as final 2025 numbers come in

We got the final numbers for the 2025 Fiscal Year in Wisconsin with this week's release of the Annual Fiscal Report. And things ended up even better than we thought they would, when it comes to amount of money the state had in the bank for its General Fund.

The state ended the 2025 Fiscal Year with a balance of $4.606 billion, nearly $268 million above what was originally budgeted, and more than $322 million above what was projected in May’s revenue estimates from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The extra General Funds appeared because overall spending was about $147 million under what was in the state budget, tax revenues were $88.6 million higher than predicted, and other departmental revenues and transfers also ended up above budgeted amounts.

This will allow for a little more cushion in this current 2-year budget cycle, although we are still on track to have that $4.605 billion dwindle to less than $1 billion by the time the budget ends.

The Fiscal Report also has this annual breakdown of General Fund expenses and revenues, which can be illuminating when you look at the trends over time. I decided to start with Fiscal Year 2010, the last year before Scott Walker and the GOP took over state government, and then take snapshots of every 5 years since then, to compare to how things are now.

In addition, let's remember that the Consumer Price Index went up by 46.6% in those 15 years, so file that away as you consider these numbers. And also note that we have had almost uninterrupted economic growth for the last 15 years, other than when the COVID pandemic took hold in 2020 (and we had largely recovered economically from that within 18 months).

On the revenue side, we've seen steady increases in individual income tax revenues of around 20% per 5 years. But we've seen a much quicker increase in both sales and corporate tax revenues, especially in the last 5 years as inflation picked up.

Other taxes in the state have consistently made up around $1.2-$1.3 billion of the state's total revenue throughout these 15 years, but note how excise taxes have plummeted (as those are often based on amounts of consumption and not prices), while insurance taxes have more than doubled.

As for expenses, like most states, Wisconsin's largest expense is aid to local K-12 public school districts, and the second-highest is for the state's share of Medicaid costs. But note that what is paid to public schools barely changed at all between 2010 and 2015 (Walker's first term), and while things aren't as flat over the last 10 years, most of that increase is categorical aids for special education, per-pupil aid and high-poverty or rural sparsity aids. Meanwhile, Wisconsin saw an increase of nearly 58% in funds spent on Medicaid and related Medical Assistance over the last 5 years, as the extra coverage from the Feds ended, and other COVID-era help faded away.

Over the last 15 years, K-12 public school funding and Medicaid have consistently made up about half of the state's General Fund expenses. But you can see that K-12 public schools take up and increasingly smaller share of that 50%, while Medicaid now accounts for nearly 1 out of 5 dollars of what the state pays out in its General Fund.

2 agencies are part of the next highest group of state expenses - Corrections and the UW System. Both were each just over 8% of state expenses in 2010, and while Corrections have largely stayed near that proportion of expenses, the UW System has dropped to less than 6% of total state cots. Conversely, what the state sends to local governments to reduce property taxes rose from just over 6% in 2010 to more than 10% in 2020, before settling above 8% for 2025. Another set of aids to local governments is shared revenue from the state, which deteriorated throughout the 2010s, but had a sizable increase in 2025 after a wide-ranging reform bill was signed into law.

I'd say the declining share of both K-12 public education and the UW System is quite a tell of priorities of what our state's done over the last 15 years.

But another type of education funding has had a giant leap in state funding over the last 15 years - vouchers for students that attend private schools, as well as charter schools. Vouchers only existed in Milwaukee and took up barely more than 1% in overall state GPR expenses in 2010, but now they take up more than 3% . Meanwhile, individual tax relief like the state's Homestead and EITC credits have declined to less than 1% of state expenses, as has funding relating to school costs for the state's Technical College System.

Seems like another trend that might need to be corrected in the coming years, eh?

So those are the numbers here in Wisconsin. Given the shrinking amount of money available, whoever is the next Governor and whoever runs the Legislature after 2026 is likely to have more constraints than we had have in the last few years. And maybe some of these trends of the last 15 years in both taxing and spending need to be revisited.

Trump/GOPs in DC forcing Wisconsinites to pay a lot for Obamacare. The WisGOPs are fine with that

Before the shutdown happened, the Congressional Budget Office said that it would cost around $35 billion a year for the next decade to bring back the expanded tax credits for Obamacare policies. In return, CBO says restoring the tax credits would not only allow milions more Americans to have health insurance, but would also cut the costs both out of pocket (due to the higher tax write-offs), and would lower the baseline premiums themselves.

CBO and JCT estimate that permanently enacting the expanded premium tax credit structure would increase deficits by $349.8 billion over the 2026–2035 period. Using HISIM2, CBO’s health insurance simulation model, the agency estimates that the number of people with health insurance would increase by 3.6 million in 2030 and by 3.8 million in 2035.

CBO also estimates that gross premiums for benchmark plans in the marketplaces would be 7.6 percent lower, on average, in each year from 2026 to 2035, relative to baseline projections. (The premium estimates reflect the amount before the tax credit is applied.) The estimated decline in benchmark premiums is the result of the expectation that people enrolling in the marketplaces would be healthier on average if the expanded premium tax credit were extended.

If the permanent expansion were enacted on September 30, 2025, CBO estimates, premiums for the 2026 plan year would be 2.4 percent lower than baseline projections. That estimate is less than the average effect of 7.6 percent over the next decade, in part, because it accounts for a 50 percent probability that 2026 premiums would not be adjusted to account for expected changes in risk pools because the assumed enactment date is later than insurers typically set their premiums.

The CBO goes on to say that there are other provisions in that Big Bunch of BS that would also iadd to the number of Americans with insurance if they were to be taken down.

CBO and JCT estimate that repealing the sections of the 2025 reconciliation act that affect the health insurance marketplaces would increase deficits by $271.9 billion over the 2026–2035 period. CBO estimates that the number of people with health insurance would increase by 2.8 million in 2030 and by 2.9 million in 2035.

That includes items which: ·Prevent various legal immigrant groups from getting tax credits, such as thos e who have received asylum, DACA recipients, temporary workers, student exchange visitors, and trafficking victims. It also includes lawfully present immigrants living below the poverty line.

None of the people listed above are "illegal immigrants", as the increasingly desperate Republicans claim. When they say this, they are LYING AND DEFLECTING.

And as a sidebar, I want to credit to the Journal-Sentinel’s Anna Kleiber for including this act of actual journalism at the end of her article on the health care part of the government shutdown.

Republicans say the Democrats' proposal would open up subsidized ACA coverage to people who are in the country illegally, but undocumented immigrants are largely ineligible for federal health benefits and don't qualify for comprehensive Medicaid coverage, Medicare or the Children's Health Insurance Program. They also can't purchase federally subsidized health plans on exchanges backed by the Affordable Care Act.

The Democratic plan would, however, restore coverage to certain categories of immigrants who would lose access to ACA due to the GOP tax-cut bill. Coverage would be restored to asylum seekers, refugees, people on work visas and students.

Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for ACA subsidies and coverage. That would not change under the Democrats' proposal.

In addition, the Big Bunch of BS put up other barriers to non-immigrant Americans that want health coverage on the Obamacare exchanges, such as:

·Preventing anyone with incomes at or below 150% of poverty from enrolling at any time other than the regular enrollment period.

·After 2028, requiring paperwork on proof of income and having already filed a previous year’s tax returns if they’ve received tax credits for Obamacare. (who is going to be able to do that if they haven’t had to file their taxes at the time they need health insurance? And how long is it going to take to gather and verify that paperwork?)

·Forcing higher repayments of excess tax credits (which wouldn’t be known until taxes are filed the following Spring), which make people not be able to afford future policies, and not want to deal with getting Obamacare in the first place. Naturally, these types of regulations and extra efforts may delight privileged groups who want to see the needy suffer, but it sure won’t help improve our economy and health outcomes.

Put it together, and here's what the CBO has said are the costs, as well as the millions of Americans who would get health care if we got rid of those provisions from the Big Bunch of BS.

I think we can reverse the $51 billion in additional funding for ICE and the military for next year that Trump/GOP threw into this budget, and maybe shear off some of those tax cuts to the rich and corporate, and we will easily be able to restore the tax credits. After all, people having and keeping health insurance would do a lot more to improve our society and our economy than whatever ICE, the military and the giveaways to the rich and corporate are doing these days.

But it just the people that will lose health insurance that are going to get hurt in the coming weeks due to the Trump/GOP's BS Bill. The Kaiser Family Family Foundation recently estimated that post-credit premiums for a typical Obamacare exchange policy will more than double for Americans that continued getting covered that way.

Based on the earlier federal data and more recent other publicly available information, KFF now estimates that, if Congress extends enhanced premium tax credits, subsidized enrollees would save $1,016 in premium payments over the year in 2026 on average. In other words, expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits is estimated to more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay annually for premiums—a 114% increase from an average of $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. (The average premium payment net of tax credits among subsidized enrollees held steady at $888 annually in 2024 and 2025 due to the enhanced premium tax credits).

That report from KFF also includes a good illustration of how these enhanced credits go on top of what already existed with the original ACA, and how the end of those credits will result in some serious sticker shock.

And the premiums themselves will be significantly higher on the exchanges next year, even more than CBO predicted a month ago. That's in part because costs in health care keep going up, and in part because fewer people will be able to purchase coverage in general, making it likely that those remaining will be more frequent and costly users of insurance.

KFF says that the median premium for individuals buying policies on the exchange will rise by 15%, and a look at Wisconsin’s announced increases for next year’s policies shows that our state’s median is around that point. But some companies are raising it by quite a bit more than that.

It’s worth remembering that an especially large number of working-poor Wisconsinites rely on the exchanges for their health insurance because of the WisGOPs’ refusal to expand Medicaid through the ACA, which would allow people between 100% and 138% of the poverty line to go onto BadgerCare while also grabbing a larger percentage of coverage from the Feds (this includes single individuals making between $15,650 and just under $21,600 this year, and a family of four with income between $32,150 and a bit below $44,400). That didn’t change in the Big Bunch of Bollocks, and is a way to extend health coverage to people without them having to worry about what might happen to costs and coverages on the exchange.

And yet, less than 2 weeks ago, we saw state-level Wisconsin Republicans not only continue to refuse to expand Medicaid in the state, they also didn't want Wisconsinites to get the enhanced tax credits to help in pay for their Obamacare policies.

With less than 24 hours until a potential shutdown of the federal government, Wisconsin Assembly Republican leaders are urging the U.S. Senate to pass a spending bill that extends funding without the Affordable Care Act subsidies Democrats want.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Majority Leader Tyler August and other leaders sent a letter Sept. 29 to Senate leaders asking them to pass the GOP spending plan and avert a shutdown.

"Holding the federal government funding hostage is not just a Washington D.C. debate for political points, it will have real and immediate consequences that cannot be overlooked," the lawmakers wrote. "From impacting pay for our troops, first responders, and firefighters to affecting critical services for seniors and veterans and disrupting food assistance for families in need, a government shutdown would inflict severe consequences that are completely avoidable."

First of all, there's nothing stopping Senate GOPs from removing the filibuster to pass this budget. They are choosing not to, which allows Dems to block any Continuing Resolution despite having only 47 Senators vs 53 Republicans.

And if Republicans think wanting to increase health coverage, and not allowing the bill to pass until that happens is "scoring political points", then maybe they shouldn't stick with such unpopular policies that will lead to higher costs for the 300,000+ Wisconsinites that currently get insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. It's up to Dems at the state level in Wisconsin to tell voters that ALL REPUBLICANS are good with the extra costs that Wisconsinites are facing. Because they clearly are, as the self-inflicted idiocy that Trump/GOPs in DC are doing with health care is fully supported by the WisGOPs in the Legislature.

And it's why I think Dems in DC should stand strong and not go out of their way to bail out the GOPs by expanding these tax credits before Americans have to sign up for Obamacare in the coming weeks, unless there's also an agreement to get ICE off our streets and stop having Russ Vought steal our tax dollars and try to lay off the DC workers that actually know stuff. Because when everyday people actually see and feel what's changed under Trump/GOP Big Bunch of BS, they're going to furious, and they will rightfully blame the GOPs for it.

And given how panicky and absurd the GOPs on Capitol Hill are acting these days, it's clear they know they're losing as well.

Republicans have had 15 years to come up with an Obamacare replacement plan. They still haven’t

[image or embed]

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell.bsky.social) October 9, 2025 at 3:21 PM

ISM numbers indicate a slowing September for the real economy

In the later part of the week, we got indicatons that the real economy slowed down in September. This includes, the Institute for Supply Management's PMI Manufacturing Index that came out on Wednesday, which showed that sector continued to struggle.

Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in September for the seventh consecutive month, following a two-month expansion preceded by 26 straight months of contraction, say the nation's supply executives in the latest ISM Manufacturing PMI® Report….

"Looking at the manufacturing economy, 67 percent of the sector's gross domestic product (GDP) contracted in September, down from 69 percent in August. Twenty-eight percent of GDP is strongly contracting (registering a composite PMI® of 45 percent or lower), up from 4 percent in August. The share of sector GDP with a PMI at or below 45 percent is a good metric to gauge overall manufacturing weakness. Of the six largest manufacturing industries, only one (Petroleum & Coal Products) expanded in September, compared to two in August," says [Susan ]Spence, [who chairs ISM’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee].

In addition, prices for manufacturers continued to rise at a widespread and significant level.

The ISM® Prices Index registered 61.9 percent in September, decreasing 1.8 percentage points compared to the previous month's reading of 63.7 percent, indicating raw materials prices increased for the 12th straight month (though at a slower rate compared to August). The Prices Index has increased 11.6 percentage points over the past 11 months. In the last eight months, the index reached its highest levels since June 2022, when it registered 78.5 percent. All of the six largest manufacturing industries — Machinery; Computer & Electronic Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Transportation Equipment; and Chemical Products, in that order — reported price increases in September. "The Prices Index reading continues to be driven by increases in steel and aluminum prices that impact the entire value chain, as well as tariffs applied to many imported goods. Higher prices were reported by 32.5 percent of respondents in September, down from 33.5 percent in August. The share of respondents reporting higher prices trended up from November 2024 (12.2 percent) to April (49.2 percent), which was the highest level since June 2022 (65.2 percent)," says Spence. A Prices Index above 52.8 percent, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Producer Price Index for Intermediate Materials.

"The highest level since 2022" is not good at all when you're talking about inflation, as that was when rices were increasing at a rate above 1.0% a month, and year-over-year inflation was at 9%.

Then on Friday, ISM reported that the service sector also underperformed in September.

The report was issued today by Steve Miller, CPSM, CSCP, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Services Business Survey Committee: “In September, the Services PMI® registered an unchanged reading of 50 percent, 2 percentage points lower than the August figure of 52 percent. The Business Activity Index moved into contraction territory in September, registering 49.9 percent, 5.1 percentage points lower than the reading of 55 percent recorded in August. This is the first time the index has entered contraction territory since May 2020. The New Orders Index remained in expansion in September, with a reading of 50.4 percent, down 5.6 percent from August’s figure of 56 percent. The Employment Index remained in contraction territory for the fourth month in a row and the fifth time in the last six months; the reading of 47.2 percent is 0.7 percentage point higher than the 46.5 percent recorded in August.

And just like we're seeing in the goods sector, prices are going up for services as well, and with less need to get more orders coming in for the future.

“The Prices Index registered 69.4 percent in September, a 0.2-percentage point increase from August’s reading of 69.2 percent. The index has exceeded 60 percent for 10 straight months, its longest such streak since 30 consecutive readings above 60 percent from October 2020 to March 2023.

“The Inventories Index dropped into contraction in September after three months in expansion territory, registering 47.8 percent, a decrease of 5.4 percentage points from August’s figure of 53.2 percent. The Inventory Sentiment Index expanded for the 29th consecutive month, registering 55.7 percent, up 0.2 percentage point from August’s figure of 55.5 percent. The Backlog of Orders Index was in contraction territory for the seventh month in a row, registering 47.3 percent in September, but with a 6.9-percentage point jump from the August figure of 40.4 percent to hit its highest reading since April (48 percent).

Put all this together, and you have a pretty gloomy picture.

These ISM reports should get extra attention from you as the government shutdown continues, because the regularly-scheduled releases of the US government's jobs and unemployment claims data has already been delayed, and September's inflation reports for later this month are also likely to be set back. So for us and the Federal Reserve, they will have to go on reports like the ISM to figure out where things stand with the overall economy. And from what we saw from the ISM, a stagflationary situation seemed to be happening for September.