Today, we're reading two editorial pieces that build a compelling case as to why the final Wall Street legislation does not address some of the biggest concerns about the financial industry that grew out of the mortgage and credit crisis.

Financial Reform Package Wouldn't Change Wall Street Much - LA Times, Nathaniel Popper and Walter Hamilton

"The financial reform legislation might change how Wall Street does business, but it would hardly put Wall Street out of business...The measure that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee would push banks to make their trading in complex securities known as derivatives more transparent and to cut back on some of the risky trading that triggered the financial crisis. It would also give regulators new powers to oversee lightly regulated financial firms, including hedge funds and insurers...But though the legislation would put new limits on Wall Street banks, it wouldn't outright bar many of their activities — including rapid-fire stock and bond trading and the packaging of complex securities to hedge their investment bets...The legislation also doesn't deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants that have been blamed for contributing to the mortgage meltdown."

Triumph of the Regulators - Wall Street Journal Editorial

"President Obama hailed the financial bill that House-Senate negotiators finally vouchsafed at 5:40 a.m. Friday, and no wonder. The bill represents the triumph of the very regulators and Congressmen who did so much to foment the financial panic, giving them vast new discretion over every corner of American financial markets...Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, those Fannie Mae cheerleaders, played the largest role in writing the bill. Congressman Paul Kanjorski even offered a motion to memorialize it as the Dodd-Frank Act. It's as if Tony Hayward of BP were allowed to write new rules on deep water drilling."