Fiscal Policy Discourse in the Presidential Campaign Is it discouraging or inconsequential that all of the three leading presidential candidates have been espousing inchoate fiscal policy from the stump, making claims sometimes divorced from reality, offering precious little to address the country's ailing fiscal condition?

Yesterday the House passed a bill that would stop the Bush administration from going forward with several regulations intended to cut Medicaid services. The administration developed the regulations under the guise of "fiscal integrity," arguing state Medicaid programs are using loopholes to inappropriately claim federal funds. Bush has threatened to veto the bill. Fortunately, the bill passed the House in a 349-62 vote which, if the margin holds, would be enough to override a veto. State governments also support the bill. According to the Associated Press, "The governors of all 50 states…oppose the rules." If all this bipartisanship and widespread agreement make you uncomfortable, fear not — the U.S. Senate is on the case.

The Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have concluded that rule changes imposed by the Bush administration on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 2007 violated federal law: BNA reports: In legal opinions released April 18, the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service said the SCHIP guidance is a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and so violates statutory requirements for congressional notice and review.

A bill to delay seven regulations that would eliminate or severely cut Medicaid health care programs won unanimous approval yesterday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 46 - 0. The top Senate Republican on this topic - Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) - opposes the House bill despite overwhelming bipartisan support for it. Grassley prefers to amend the regulations rather than postpone for a year.