Wednesday round up.

At The American Spectator, Peter Ferrara presents a terrific review of Brian Domitrovic's Econoclasts.

Hilariously, The Spectator heads this supply-side history with a photo of monetarist Milton Friedman, rather than supply-side pioneer Robert Mundell.

Cato's Alan Reynolds repudiates Alan Blinder and Mark Zandy.

Brian Wesbury advocates fiscal austerity.

At The Kudlow Report, Dan Mitchell debates deficits and tax cuts.

Also on Kudlow, Stephen Moore discusses job creation.

At Noot's Observatory, noot rebuts Martin Wolf's recent attack on supply-side economics.

Again, what Wolf sees as a failure of supply-side I see as a failure by Republican and Democratic leadership alike to reduce spending, especially in the entitlement area. Sure, “starve the beast” is a farce, and Republicans did nothing about spending when they had the chance — save their effort to privatize Social Security — but if you subtract the “tax cuts pay for themselves” element from the rest of supply-side theory, are you left with nothing? Or are you left with the idea that low taxes on businesses and individuals foster economic growth without producing mass inflation? I don’t see that those ideas are dependent on one another, and I don’t see how the deficits of the Bush and Reagan years are evidence of the abject failure of supply-side economics.

The WSJ reports a poll that says a plurality favors extending the Bush tax cuts to all income groups.

A Reuters poll indicates dollar strength is the second indicator after employment for rating the economy (question 7).

Progressive Matthew Yglesias suggests supply-side policies leads to lower growth.

Mint.com features an interesting graphic on U.S. debt ownership.