Has it now. Where and when was that established?
Other posters covered that several times already. For some reason, you obstinately ignore it. But, that does not make it cease to exist.
Plenty of things, but that's a red herring: it's impossible to produce "steady, controlled inflation" in the first place. What we get instead is wild, uncontrolled swings like the '70s and boom-bust cycles like the '30s and the current "sub-prime mortgage" implosion.
I am afraid the above statements betray substantial ignorance of economics. The money supply has to keep up with the expansion of the economy. Headless already explained this in another thread. Roughly speaking, the Great Depression was deflationary because production greatly outpaced money supply. An opposite example is the huge inflation the Europe experienced in the 1500 and 1600s as the Spaniards brought so much silver from the New World that money (which was mostly silver at the time) lost value with respect to the production of the period. Incidentally, that is a good historical example of why there is nothing magical about a silver/gold standard and how it is susceptible to money supply problems as well.
If "steady, controlled inflation" were possible to achieve, it would still be theft: it means that savers' money is devalued in a "steady, controlled" fashion as surely as if it were gradually taxed away to nothing.
A controlled inflation is what we have had since the foundation of the federal reserve.
How well controlled is another matter. It is not always perfect and there are stresses to the system from internal and external sources, but generally and most of the time, the fed keep a tight leash on the economy through interest rates and money supply.
As regards the saver's devaluation, welcome to the real world. You cannot just put money in a pot and forget about it. You have to invest in something. If you do not know how and do not wish to learn, give it to somebody else to manage. If you are willing to take a bit of risk, you can configure your portfolio with more equity and consistently beat the inflation over the long term and make pretty money in the process. If you are very risk-averse, configure the portfolio to money-markets, which essentially keep with the inflation. Even something as simple and dumb as sticking the money in a savings account will allow you to offset a lot of the inflation if not all. That's the magic of interest rates.
Now if an individual saver feels he cannot be bothered with any of the options above and just sticks paper money under his mattress, that's his business. In a free country, people are free to be stupid and pay for it.
Finally, if you are so worried about inflation but do not want to invest, buy ingots and hold them. But even that is no guarantee to stability or value preservation. What if tomorrow Chile discovers a huge new silver mine or South Africa discovers a huge new gold mine? The value of your ingots will plummet, while the paper money will not be affected nearly as much.
The bottom line is that in economics, there are no guarantees. Supply and demand are the general rule, and risk is inherent. Return to the gold standard is an ignorant, impractical idea. People support it not because they understand modern economics but because they think that will somehow curb gov spending. Except, throughout history, even when money was precious metal, govs have run deficits in one way or another, generally with little input from the governed. The whole idea is preposterous.