Donald Trump infamously cheered for a housing bust so he could buy low and make money off of others misery. Hell likely delight in rotten May job numbers on the theory that enraged voters will flock to him.
As The Washington Post put it: "The unemployment rate ticked down from 5.0 to 4.7 percent for the rotten reason that there are almost half a million fewer people looking for work; the economy added 38,000 jobs in May when it was expected to add 155,000; it turned out that 59,000 fewer jobs were created in March and April than we had previously thought; and 468,000 more people who wanted full-time jobs could find only part-time work. Ugly all around."
Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin calls the report a "disaster" and predicts it will "scare the Fed off any rate increase, despite the fact that it would probably be smart to start moving rates toward normal."
Before he brings out the party hats, Trump should keep in mind that there is plenty of time between now and the election for the economy to tick upward. Moreover, running on the bad economy in 2012 (which was a lot worse than it is now) did not get Mitt Romney elected. In failing to give voters a vision of shared prosperity and upward mobility, Romney gave them insufficient reason to vote out President Barack Obama.
Trumps "idea" for stimulating the economy is nonsensical: a tax cut disproportionately benefiting the rich that loses $10 trillion over a decade, refuse to address the driver of debt (entitlement reform), kick out 11 million to 12 million workers and consumers and start a trade war with China. So, forget that.
Hillary Clinton says she wants to "invest" (liberals favorite word for "spend") heavily in our "infrastructure, education and innovation." In code for a tax hike for the rich, she said, "We need to reduce income inequality, because our country cant lead effectively when so many are struggling to provide the basics for their families." Lets see if there is something Republicans can work with.
Then there is "innovation." We could spend more on "pure science" (although the link to innovation is tenuous) and favorites like the National Institutes of Health, but more discretionary spending should be paired with entitlement reform so as not to exacerbate our long-term debt problem.
As for income inequality, rather than soak-the-rich schemes, Republicans might agree with items like payroll tax relief (benefiting disproportionately working- and middle-class taxpayers), expansion of the earned-income tax credit and an array of bipartisan anti-poverty reforms.
Its conceivable that Congress and a new president could reach agreement on many items if they are flexible and focus on the quality of government policies, not simply on the amount spent and taxed. None of that is possible, however, with Trump in the White House.
Jennifer Rubin is a Washington Post columnist.