Wednesday summary: Domitrovic on Don Devine; Jenkins on inequality; PIIE's Lardy on the yuan.

From Forbes, Brian Domitrovic highlights Donald Devine’s spending cuts during the Reagan era.

At The WSJ, Holman Jenkins diagnoses inequality obsession.

In The WSJ, Stephen Moore notes the Senate vote on the Republican small business tax bill.

On The Kudlow Report, Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchison (TX) debates the plan:



The WSJ explains that yuan convertibility will require substantial financial liberalization in China.

From the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Nicholas Lardy argues that with its current account surplus down and its currency higher, there’s no cause to press China to raise the yuan further.

And on the downside, The Washington Post reports PIIE chief Fred Bergsten making common cause with Occupy Wall Street.

On TGSN, Ralph Benko highlights a pro-gold article by Princeton scholar and one-time Ben Bernanke collaborator Harold James.

At The American, James Pethokoukis critiques arguments that the US should return to 1950s tax rates.

From First Trust, Brian Wesbury suggests big government doesn’t make one any more secure from life’s risks.

In The WSJ, US Trade Rep. Ron Kirk notes rising export of US services.

Wednesday summary: Benko on the Gold Commission; Forbes discusses Romney spending and tax plans; Lewis on gold versus a commodity basket.

From TGSN, Ralph Benko notes critical interest in Gingrich’s Gold Commission.

On his blog, Dick Morris suggests Mitt Romney beat Newt Gingrich in Florida by distracting him from talking about pro-growth ideas.

The WSJ wonders if Gingrich can come back by focusing on policy.

At The Future of Capitalism, Ira Stoll notes Romney’s remark on the poor.

On The Kudlow Report, Steve Forbes discusses Romney’s fiscal proposals:



From The American, James Pethokoukis examines poverty rates in America.

At Forbes, Nathan Lewis argues gold is a superior to a commodity basket for monetary stability.

From The Financial Post (CA), Steve Hanke explains the danger of exchange rate manipulation.

The Cato Policy Report excerpts remarks from its November monetary conference.

From First Trust, Brian Wesbury predicts the Fed’s loose policy will lead to inflation.

At NCPA, Bob McTeer explains that saving not bad for the economy.

On The Kudlow, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) debates tax rates:



In The Washington Times, Dean Kleckner opposes the Obama Administration’s tough stance on China trade.

In US News, Dan Mitchell supports the flat tax.

At TGSN, Ralph Benko highlights George Washington’s support for sound money.

Wednesday round up: Lehrman on the US/China currency link; Hutchison rebuts Keynesianism; Kadlec rebuts Buffett.

From The American Spectator, Lew Lehrman explains how the dollar reserve-currency system has turned China into a US colony and fostered debt and inflation (h/t: TGSN).

At Asia Times, Martin Hutchison provides an important rebuttal of Keynesian spending stimulus.

On Forbes, Charles Kadlec explains that soak-the-rich tax policy hurts the middle and lower class.

From the archives, Jude Wanniski discusses the media and supply-side economics:




In The WSJ, Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins critique the Value Added Tax as a path to bigger government.

At The American Spectator, Peter Ferrara sees inflation hastening the economy’s spiral into crisis.

From First Trust, Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein argue the European crisis will not damage the US significantly.

In The Washington Times, Richard Rahn advocates cost-benefit analysis of regulations.

From Asia Times, Davild Goldman suggests China be allowed to purchase 49% of Bank of America.

At The National Interest, Barry Eichengreen critiques the arguments for a gold standard (h/t: Bruce Bartlett).

Friday items: Woodhill discounts the Dow for gold; Lehrman and Grant testify on monetary policy; Geithner supports a world reserve currency.

From The Weekly Standard, Lewis Lehrman argues for a gold-backed dollar.

At Forbes, Louis Woodhill measures the Dow against the gold price.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (TX) held hearings yesterday on Federal Reserve policy and rising prices, featuring Lewis Lehrman and James Grant:



(Parts 2-8 of the hearing, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

(Lehrman’s written submission here, Grant’s here. H/t: Ralph Benko, Rich Danker.)

The Telegraph (UK) reports world markets were stunned by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s suggestion that the U.S. supports a global reserve currency.

From last week, The WSJ recounts a hapless Fed official’s explanation to working people that price inflation is under control.

So Mr. Dudley tried to explain that other prices are falling. "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said. "You have to look at the prices of all things."

Reuters reports that this "prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience," with someone quipping, "I can't eat an iPad." Another attendee asked, "When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?"

At RCM, Cato’s Kevin Dowd and Martin Hutchison tie dollar volatility to the recent boom/bust cycles and suggest investors are pulling out of the U.S. as a result.

From Future of Capitalism, Ira Stoll notes the Ways and Means Committee Chairman wants a top tax rate of 25 percent.

At Democracy Journal, supply-side critic Jonathan Chait laments the GOP’s refusal to raise tax rates.

We can identify three phases of supply-side craziness in Republican Party history. In phase one, the Republican establishment greeted supply-side economics with incredulity. The messianism and insouciant disregard for sound fiscal principles sounded more like a nutty left-wing scheme than anything a Dwight Eisenhower or even a Barry Goldwater might recognize. George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.” A great blaze of tax cutting at the outset of the Reagan presidency quickly produced massive deficits, and the Reagan Administration — still dominated by an older generation of Republicans — quickly retrenched. It quietly raised taxes in 1982 and 1983, and then in 1986—aghast at the massive corporate tax loopholes that had grown out of its initial tax cuts—agreed to a tax reform that, even in the course of lowering nominal rates, shifted a larger share of the tax burden onto the rich by sweeping the tax code of subsidies for the wealthy.

Through the next decade, in phase two, the Republican Party stayed committed to anti-tax absolutism in rhetoric, but it remained largely tethered to fiscal reality in practice. In 1990, George H.W. Bush agreed to a major deficit-reduction package, including substantial spending cuts, in return for a small hike in the top marginal income tax rate, from 28 to 31 percent….

Which brings us to phase three. Over the last 20 years, the penetration of taxophobia within the Republican Party has been total. Reducing taxes, especially taxes on the rich, has been enshrined as the party’s unquestioned central policy goal. Virtually all Republicans at the national level have signed a pledge concocted by anti-tax fanatic Grover Norquist pledging never, under any circumstances, to support higher taxes. No such pledge exists for spending.

On Forbes, Peter Ferrara suggests Social Security accounts are still a viable option.

From Fiscal Times, Bruce Bartlett argues Tea Party Republicans are blowing it by focusing on small, unpopular budget cuts.