Thursday the President pronounced that “because of this [financial reform] bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.”

As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investor — a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman’s share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd (“Goldman is doing God’s work”) Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.

Blankfein, you may recall, was at the meeting in late 2008 when Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson decided to bail out AIG, and thereby deliver through AIG a $13 billion no-strings-attached taxpayer windfall to Goldman. In a world where money is the measure of everything, Blankfein’s power and influence have grown. Presumably, Goldman can expect more windfalls in future years.

Although the financial reform bill may have clipped some of Goldman’s wings — its lucrative derivative business may require Goldman to jettison its status as a bank holding company, and the access to the Fed discount window that comes with it — the main point is that the Goldman settlement reveals everything that’s weakest about the financial reform bill.

The American people will continue to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of Wall Street’s biggest banks because the legislation does nothing to diminish the economic and political power of these giants. It does not cap their size. It does not resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial (normal) banking from investment (casino) banking. It does not even link the pay of their traders and top executives to long-term performance. In other words, it does nothing to change their basic structure. And for this reason, it gives them an implicit federal insurance policy against failure unavailable to smaller banks — thereby adding to their economic and political power in the future.

The bill contains hortatory language but is precariously weak in the details. The so-called Volcker Rule has been watered down and delayed. Blanche Lincoln’s important proposal that derivatives be traded in separate entities which aren’t subsidized by commercial deposits has been shrunk and compromised. Customized derivates can remain underground. The consumer protection agency has been lodged in the Fed, whose own consumer division failed miserably to protect consumers last time around.

On every important issue the legislation merely passes on to regulators decisions about how to oversee the big banks and treat them if they’re behaving badly. But if history proves one lesson it’s that regulators won’t and can’t. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have the knowledge. They are staffed by people in their 30s and 40s who are paid a small fraction of what the lawyers working for the banks are paid. Many want and expect better-paying jobs on Wall Street after they leave government, and so are shrink-wrapped in a basic conflict of interest. And the big banks’ lawyers and accountants can run circles around them by threatening protracted litigation.

Why do you think Goldman got off so easily from such serious charges of fraud?

Reliance on the discretion of regulators rather than structural changes in the banking system plays directly into the hands of the big banks and their executives and traders who contribute mightily to Democratic and Republican campaigns. The flow of money virtually guarantees that regulatory agencies won’t be adequately staffed to enforce the law, that penalties for violations won’t be overly onerous, and that all loopholes (what’s a “derivative”? what has to be listed on exchanges? exactly how much capital must be on hand for which transactions? How are the various forms of predatory lending to be defined?) will be easily stretched in future years. Wall Street lawyers will have a field day. The profit-for-nothing sector of the economy (law, accounting, finance) will continue to grow buoyantly.

Make no mistake: As long as there’s no fundamental change in the structure of Wall Street — as long as the big banks stay as big and are allowed to grow bigger, and have every incentive to invent new financial gimmicks with which to bet other peoples’ money — they will remain too big to fail, and too politically powerful to control.

Goldman’s share price, as well as those of JP Morgan Chase, Citicorps, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America, will no doubt soar the basis of the final bill because their future profits are almost guaranteed. The pay of their executives and traders, and of the managers of hedge funds and private-equity funds they deal with, will likewise accelerate. In the short term the economy will benefit, at least to the extent financial entrepreneurship is now the apex of American wealth and innovation. But over the longer term we will be much weaker for it.

Congress has labored mightily to produce a mountain of legislation that can be called financial reform, but it has produced a molehill relative to the wreckage Wall Street wreaked upon the nation.

Link to Original Article

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is joining 8 states supporting Arizona's controversial immigration law. That law is now being challenged in federal court by the Obama Administration.

"While much of border enforcement is left to the federal government, federal law expressly allows states to arrest people who are not legally present in the United States. Arizona's law doesn't change any of this. That's why we are stunned that the government has sued Arizona," said Cuccinelli.

The amicus brief was filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. It defends Arizona's and all states' authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws. Those who signed off on the brief say the Federal Government selectively enforces immigration laws. They say under current circumstances, states have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law.

Arizona's law, which takes effect July 29, directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in this country illegally. It also makes it a crime for legal immigrants not to carry their immigration documents.

Virginia is 1 of 2 states working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to identify illegal aliens whenever they are book at any jail in the state.

Joining Virginia in the brief supporting Arizona are Michigan, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Arizona’s new anti-immigrant law has the nation’s attention, and it is heavily divided.  On one hand, Arizona’s political leaders have hailed the measure as ushering in a new era in which states will finally be taking immigration matters into their own hands.  On the other, the ACLU and several allied organizations have filed a lawsuit claiming that the Arizona law unconstitutionally usurps federal immigration authority and attempts to legalize racial profiling.

The new law, which requires police to obtain immigration papers from anyone they stop whenever they suspect them of being unlawfully present in the country, is indeed a surefire recipe for racial profiling.  After all, who will police suspect as being unlawfully present in Arizona other than Latinos?

As to whether it usurps federal constitutional authority, that’s a complicated matter that the courts will have to decide.  The Justice Department, which filed its own lawsuit last week, seems to think it does, adding heft to the ACLU’s argument.  (Read more about the ACLU’s efforts to challenge Arizona’s law.)

As this builds into a major court battle that could determine the direction of state immigration policies for years to come, our advice to lawmakers in Virginia is to wait and see.  Of course, we hope the Arizona law will be struck down, thus removing the temptation for Virginia’s legislators to eat from Arizona’s plate during the 2011 legislative session.

If not, we hope that cool heads will continue to prevail in the Virginia General Assembly, where the vast majority of anti-immigrant bills have been rejected in recent years.

Most public officials in Virginia seem to understand that, constitutional or not, a law like Arizona’s is fraught with implementation problems.  In addition to the racial profiling lawsuits it will inevitably elicit, it diverts state and local law enforcement officials from fighting serious crimes and transforms them into immigration officials.  In times when money is short, that’s not an easy sell.

The manila envelope in Frank Anderson's mailbox contained his passport back into the electorate.

It delivered the decision he had been seeking for years -- a restoration of his civil rights, which he lost with his felony burglary conviction 11 years ago.

Anderson petitioned then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to get back his voting rights but was denied. He was told that moving violations, including speeding tickets -- Anderson had many -- counted against the mandate that nonviolent felons have no convictions for violations of the law for three years before applying.

Anderson, now 32, resubmitted his application under the McDonnell administration, which has said it will not disqualify nonviolent felons from getting back their voting rights based on speeding tickets.

"I was checking the mail every day and the letter came in last Tuesday," said Anderson, a George Mason University student.