"Critics argue that the tax-law change rewards companies that took on too much leverage during the credit bubble, such as those that were bought by private-equity firms."

Sound like anybody we know? How about Harrah's Entertainment, which played Russian roulette with the bond market and got its brains spattered all over the wall. Lucky for them, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was there with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card -- or at least a tax break that, in effect, rewards morally hazardous borrowing. Thanks to Harry's largesse, it'll be a full decade before Harrah's pays off the gains it's about to realize from buying back part of its $23 billion (!) debt at a discount.

That is, assuming that the crafty Reid hasn't carved out yet another tax exemption for improvident borrowers like Harrah's, Station Casinos and Colony Capital by 2019. And between that gift-wrapped tax deferment and last week's endorsement by Nevada GOP kingmaker Sig Rogich, Reid is as good as re-elected through 2016. (Which must come as a terrible disappointment to Las Vegas Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick, who has been conducting a blushing-maiden campaign for the GOP nod via his blog and Sunday column, trying to draft himself as Nevada's Only Hope of Salvation.) One prospective Reid rival has seen the handwriting on the wall and given up.

As the Wall Street Journal story points out, there are far worse outcomes for Harrah's management, its employees -- innocent bystanders to this debacle -- and its debtors, who'll realize some tax forgiveness themselves. Besides, it's clearly preferable that super-leveraged companies pay back some of their debt rather than walk away from the whole kit 'n kaboodle. That goes without saying.

But what lesson is likeliest to be drawn in the boardroom? Will it be, "Damn, but we dodged a bullet there! Let's not pull an LBO stunt like that again"? Or will executives reach the conclusion, "Hey, that was easy! As soon as we're clear of this mess, let's run up another whopping tab. We won't have to pay off the whole thing and we'll probably get another big-ass tax break from Harry in the bargain. Party on, dudes"?

Recent history does inspire confidence that the former option will hold sway over the latter.

Small victory for Sands: There's a silver lining in the (relatively) dismal February revenue numbers from Macao, which are down 16% from last year, to $1 billion. "Dismal," that is, by Macao standards, which are higher than anybody else's.

While Stanley Ho continues to command the plurality of the market (29%), Las Vegas Sands has clawed back. Its January market share (22%) has risen to nearly 26%. These gains came mainly at the expense of Melco Crown Entertainment (down to 9%) and MGM Mirage/Pansy Ho (bringing up the rear with 6%).

Given the worrisome financial straits MGM finds itself in elsewhere, it's time to think the once-unthinkable: That CEO Jim Murren could decide that $30 million/month in revenue isn't worth maintaining a Macanese beachhead and sells the company's subconcession back to Stanley Ho. Then the elder Ho's tactless references to MGM Grand Macau as "my casino" would achieve the status of prophecy.