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.

Amit Dave/ReutersA man walks through a dried-up Sarkhej lake on a hot summer day in Ahmedabad in April.

It doesnt take long to draw up some crisis that could damage the global economy.

Chinas slowdown, ever increasing emerging-market debt, political instability in the Middle East, and the breakup of the European Union all pose serious risks.

But none of those worries compare to the real danger, according to Joe Quinlan, strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynchs US Trust.

He wrote (emphasis added):

They all represent known unknowns--or externalities already acknowledged and discounted by the capital markets. Thats the good news. The bad news: None of the hazards just mentioned are as remotely as threatening to the global economy as water-related climate change risks, a dynamic little understood by investors.

Quinlan believes that climate change will decrease the supply of water available not only for human consumption, but also industrial use to dangerously low levels. Without water, which he calls the lifeblood of the global economy, it will be impossible for economies to function, from the human toll to the simple fact that many industries are water-intensive.

He cited a World Bank report that lays out just how dire the situation is: 1.6 billion people could be subject to serious water scarcity within 20 years, while global water demand could shoot up as much as 50% by 2050. Industrial water demand could increase 50% to 70% by 2050, according to World Bank estimates.

Indias difficult water situation over the past two years is the perfect example of this trend, according to Quinlan. Heres his breakdown (emphasis added):

None other than India, the newly anointed growth champion of the world economy, is in the grips of a two-year drought that threatens the economic livelihood of more than 300 million people. Because water levels in Indias 91 reservoirs are at their lowest levels in decades, agricultural output has declined, while electricity generation has plummeted. Dams are parched, factories are operating below capacity, and the lack of safe drinking water has put the health of millions of people at risk. Water wars have erupted between states, making the crisis all that more acute for the national government. Add it all up and the worlds strongest emerging market is being laid low by a climate-induced water crisis.

In order to alleviate these concerns, Quinlan said, governments and private firms will need to invest extensively in conservation and means to combat the global crisis, or risk it totally decimating growth.

According to Quinlans estimates, the world water industry already generates around $450 billion a year, and that is poised to increase as the globe confronts this issue.

If that doesnt happen, there could be dire consequences.

Quinlan concluded:

Global climate change--or the increasing frequency and severity of droughts, floods and violent storms--has added another dangerous element and layer to the worlds mounting water crisis. This slow-motion crisis of the past few decades is now accelerating, creating plenty of risks to global growth but also multiple investment opportunities.

Tax reform often seems like an elusive goal. But conservatives should be pleased about where we are on this issue. We've come a long way in just a few years.

The ideal tax reform would lower tax rates on families and businesses and establish a consumption tax base. A consumption base doesn't necessarily mean a sales tax. It means any plan that doesn't tax saving and investment multiple times like the current one does. A flat tax, for example, is a consumption tax.

In 2012, Mitt Romney released a tax plan when he was running for president. The plan made many improvements to the tax code, but it wouldn't have allowed the economy to grow at its potential because it didn't move far enough toward a consumption tax.

His plan lowered rates and broadened the tax base, which was good. However, he severely constrained the plan by adhering to revenue-neutrality -- meaning his plan raised the same amount of revenue as the current system. So he couldn't lower rates or reduce tax on saving and investment enough to get strong growth effects.

To be sure, the economic climate was much different four years ago in a way that made proposing tax cuts difficult. Deficits were historically large, and revenues still were well below historical norms because of the Great Recession.

Two years later, Dave Camp, then-chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, released his draft tax reform proposal. In many ways, Camp's draft mirrored Romney's. It reduced rates and broadened the tax base, but it too fell prey to revenue neutrality. The plan didn't reduce rates enough or substantially cut taxes on saving and investment.