I'm starting to think that president Bush (I am hereby no longer capitalizing the word "president" in reference to Bush) is actually Barack Obama's biggest fan.

Why else would he spend the last weeks of his presidency in a constant quest to reach new lows, if not for the assumption that he hopes for Obama to be viewed as "The Best President Ever" in comparison?

Especially since so many of his last-minute partisan policy maneuvers will probably be immediately reversed as soon as Obama assumes control of the presidency.

What am I talking about?

Well, first, let's talk about the bad news...

Yesterday, the Department of the Treasury finalized the rules to implement the UIGEA, in a move that flew in the face of the American banking industry, the newly-elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, the international legal gaming community, and the American economy in general. Not to mention simple common sense.

As I mentioned the other day, there is a rule on the books which states that laws finalized more than 60 days before a change in administration can not be canceled by the incoming administration. This explains why the Bushies did everything they could to jam the UIGEA through and into law before the November 17th deadline.

Let's think about this maneuver for a moment, and what it says about the outgoing administration.

With the American economy in an ever-tightening spiral, you would think that the outgoing administration would be concerned with the country's best interests and would be working with the incoming administration to address the country's financial problems. That would be the true classy non-partisan move, would it not?

Instead, the Bush administration is concerning its last days with implementing ideological policies that do nothing but hinder the country's economic woes.

I mean, seriously, even if you oppose online gambling, surely you would agree that now is not the time to saddle the American banking industry with increased costs and unnecessary restrictions?

Think about the message this is sending...

"Hey America! We know that the country is in the midst an economic tornado right now, and we understand that it was mostly caused by shitty federal oversight in the banking industry. That's why we are spending a trillion of your tax dollars to right this problem. But first, we want the banks to spend their best time and efforts figuring out how to stop a global industry from injecting billions of dollars into the American economy - because Jesus hates gambling."

Now that is leadership in a crisis, folks.

But now for the good news... we may not have to worry too much because according to the Politico, there is a catch.

Apparently, there is a little known legal clause that the incoming administration can use to reverse ridiculous ideological laws that outgoing administrations try to pass as they are heading out the door. This clause is a last vestige of the Clinton era. It's nice to see that he was doing more than just White House interns, but I digress.

The story states "The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate."

Now, despite all of my bluster, I am no legal scholar. I have no clue if or how this clause might apply to the UIGEA - since that law was originally passed more than two years ago - but if it it is only being finalized and implemented now, then it would seem to be applicable to this clause.

If that is the case... SWEET!

The last question is whether, with all of the thousands of other seemingly more important issues that need addressing, the Obama administration will have the time or inclination to bother taking the time to reverse this particular law.

However, since this law concerns an issue that has caught the interest of Barney Frank, the banking industry, and the mainstream press, I think - assuming it qualifies for review - there is a pretty good chance that this might be one of the laws that could get tossed.

But, as I've said many times, I'm not a legal scholar.

Which brings up today's homework assignment...

Are there any lawyers out there who can interpret the law and clause highlighted by the Politico article and decide if the UIGEA applies? If so, please add your comment to this post. Full marks if you support your argument with at least 50 words of explanation.

It might not be over yet.