UIGEA new positive bill just passed

[littlebit]

Jetset, I saw a small article at Politico concerning this the other day. I'm sorry I don't have the link but it is referred to at another site:

Congressional Democrats are eyeing a little-known, Clinton-era law as a way to reverse Bush administration midnight regulations — even ones that have already taken effect.

It’s a move that would undermine the White House’s attempt to finalize its energy and environmental regulations by November so that Barack Obama couldn’t undo them after he’s sworn in as the 44th president on Jan. 20.

“Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

President Bill Clinton finalized regulations within 60 days of the 2001 inauguration, meaning Bush could come in and easily reverse them.

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress. - Politico

I saw the same thing as MaxD last night at MSNBC and according to Rachel Maddow, the date for the Bush Administration to pass bills was May 15, 2008 in order for them to be nearly impossible to reverse.

Guess we shall see

[jas2587]

think this is the link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html

Cindy

[jetset]

Jetset, I saw a small article at Politico concerning this the other day. I'm sorry I don't have the link but it is referred to at another site:

Congressional Democrats are eyeing a little-known, Clinton-era law as a way to reverse Bush administration midnight regulations — even ones that have already taken effect.

It’s a move that would undermine the White House’s attempt to finalize its energy and environmental regulations by November so that Barack Obama couldn’t undo them after he’s sworn in as the 44th president on Jan. 20.

“Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

President Bill Clinton finalized regulations within 60 days of the 2001 inauguration, meaning Bush could come in and easily reverse them.

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress. - Politico

I saw the same thing as MaxD last night at MSNBC and according to Rachel Maddow, the date for the Bush Administration to pass bills was May 15, 2008 in order for them to be nearly impossible to reverse.

Guess we shall see

Excellent! Many thanks, littlebit

[jetset]

LEGALISED U.S. INTERNET GAMBLING BACK ON THE AGENDA

AGA chief says tax revenues appeal to federal legislators in these hard times

After weeks of negative reports that US online gambling is being dismantled by the outgoing Bush administration, a spark of hope was ignited over the weekend by the chief of the powerful American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf, who says that the new Congress may have more appetite for a legalised industry....and the taxes it can deliver.

According to a report in the Reno Gazette-Journal, Fahrenkopf opines that the legalisation of Internet gambling will be the hottest federal issue facing Nevada's gaming industry in the next few years. Speaking on the run-up to the Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas, the influential executive said that the need for new tax money could drive legalisation initiatives in both houses of Congress next year.

"There have been projections circulated on the Hill that it can raise billions of dollars in new federal revenue," said Fahrenkopf. "So we can expect that the whole issue of Internet gambling will be front and center in the next Congress."

Federal lawmakers see that potential tax revenue from Internet gaming could fuel their legislative agenda, Fahrenkopf added. "Congress has adopted a pay-as-you-go system," he said. "So any Congressman or Senator who introduces a piece of legislation that is going to cost something will also have to show how they are going to pay for it, either by cutting spending in one place or raising taxes in another. So we know under those circumstances, they will be looking around at a place to get additional revenue."

But Fahrenkopf cautioned that any push to legalise and tax Internet gaming will first have to redress anti-Internet gaming work done by the Bush administration over the past few years. He noted the "midnight drop" submission of the regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 in the waning weeks of the Bush presidency, and the efforts of the Democrat chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, to counter the Act and the regulations.

Nevada gaming companies have mixed opinions on the issue, Fahrenkopf said.

"If it were legalized, I know that Harrah's, which now owns the World Series of Poker, would be extremely interested in getting into that market. We know that MGM has been bullish on Internet gaming for a long time. Steve (Wynn)... I don't know what he would do and I don't know what some of the other operators would do."

[RobWin]

"If it were legalized, I know that Harrah's, which now owns the World Series of Poker, would be extremely interested in getting into that market.

That's also what my contact at Harrah's has been telling me for the past year too...it's definitely getting a lot closer now and if the Obama administration makes it happen which I truly believe they will then he will be viewed as more popular than he already is !

[jetset]

Robwin and I were discussing this just last week, opining that the US online gambling billions lying around in the wake of the UIGEA make a tempting target for strapped land casino groups.

This would seem to indicate that at least AGA members are taking a carefully considered look at it.

Having now scared most of the big Internet operator competition out of the US market, and by the looks of things MGS getting very nervous on this issue too, plus a Democrat controlled Congress....the times are starting to look more propitious for the US big boys to start coming out to play.

A start may be getting the legislators to approve Shelley Berkley's study bill, laying the foundations for more concrete action in the future.

And in the meantime there's always that CRA law to undo the Bush excesses.....

[gamblingcowboy]

Now that Paulsen and The Federal Reservce Chief spent hundreds of billions of dollars buying preferred stock in the major banks, they now become a shareholder. Regular US Citizens can't even buy preferred stock, all we can buy is common stock. Preferred Stocks have special voting rights and input. Instead of buying the toxic loans and portfolio, paulsen bought stock that gave the bank billions and billions to do whatever they want with it. Save it, pay dividends, buy out smaller banks, or loan the money back to the taxpayers at 12 to 25% interest.

Banking and Wall Street executives got the big bailout, and Paulsen and Federal Reserve (Bush Administration) got the Intenet Regulations that the banks were initally opposing. And just like the bail out (down you throught or die) strategy, the regulations are the (sign at the last minute, behind your back) strategy.

This is how it's always been with Bush, Republican, Big Oil, and Financial Money makers. This is Bushes way of finally paying off his debt to all of these Big Contributors to his Presidential Campaign all orchestrated by Dick Cheney. Why has he been so very quite these past four or five months?

One other thing that I heard was that the banks will now start reporting every credit card purchase to the IRS for possible tax invasion schemes. (I can't remember where I saw or read this at, but I know I did).

I better stop there, or I might just blow a fuse.

Come on Obama, throw me some Lucky seven's.

ajsandiego
The Gambling Cowboy

[GrandMaster]

Preferred Stocks have special voting rights and input.

No, they have no voting right, they are "preferred" because they rank ahead of common stocks when dividends are paid or when the company is wound up.

[jetset]

The AGA chief has reiterated his comments earlier this week that Internet gambling is now a priority for the Association.

In public, too - at Tuesday's Global Gaming Expo he covered the depressing state of the US casino financial and business scene and said Internet gaming will become an issue that Congress will face next year - probably with a study on the issue. The American Gaming Association is a supporter of an independent study as proposed by Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley.

He told delegates in the Las Vegas Convention Center that there may be a congressional push to legalise portions of Internet gaming, such as poker, or study the matter to see if it can be taxed and regulated.

"This is the issue that will keep us the busiest next year," he said.

See also Posts # 54 and 56 above.