So let me see if I’ve got this right. The government wants to clamp down on risky behavior. And specifically those banks and institutions that take undue risk for unheard of compensation.
So Barney Frank wants to put a limit on the compensation and the risk. So now the government — hardly immune to taking huge risks with our money — is telling others how not to take huge risks with their money.
Someone, please wake me up. And someone please ask Barney or anyone what exactly defines risk?
Spending a trillion bucks on health care on the promise it will save money when the CBO says it won't — that is an acceptable risk? A guy earning millions in a private enterprise for a financial bet that does pan out — that is not an acceptable risk?
Spending $800 billion on stimulus that doesn't stimulate – that’s OK? Goldman Sachs returning a fraction of that amount from the government, with interest, and now stimulating away just fine, that's not OK?
What kind of world do we live in where the government can spend trillions with no accountability and then see fit to judging banks' accountability?
Folks who produce budgets in the red now lecturing companies about staying in the black? Folks who can't account for trillions demanding banks cool it on paying out millions?
Never mind the bank isn't on the government's dime; Barney Frank wants it under the government's thumb. Who better to oversee the process? Truth be told, who better to make a mockery of it?
— Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to email@example.com