If you were hoping that either wing of the Bankers-Own-This-Place Party that controls both Democrats and Republicans would use the federal government to compel the nation’s banks to assist in economic recovery, their respective apologists sent clear messages: America’s Mega-Banks have nothing to fear from them.

On ABC’s This Week, Larry Summers, to whom the banks owe a great deal, told us he thought the banks needed a reminder from the President of how much they owe the country. Meanwhile Eric Cantor said he wants Obama to assure the banks he understands that government, which last winter provided trillions to cover their reckless risks, is discouraging their risk taking.

From Stephanopoulos, quoting Summers, then Cantor:

“President Obama is going to be talking with them about what they can do to support enhanced lending to customers across the country.

"We were there for them. And the banks need to do everything they can to be sure they’re there for customers across this country.”

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor agreed that there is a problem with scarce lending, but didn’t blame the bankers.

Cantor told me there is, “no question that there is a still a deprivation of credit in this country for small businesses. And when the president meets with the bankers, I hope that the discussion centers on what seems to be a real overreaction, if you will, on the part of some auditors in the regulatory arena that are looking at risk taking as something that just shouldn’t be done at all.”

Ah, yes, because as everyone knows, the banks nearly crashed the world’s economy because government exercised too much oversight; but now that the banking part of the crisis is over, we should fix this by exercising less oversight so the banks can give back a tiny fraction of what we gave them. Because saying "please" is our best strategy.

These people live on another planet.

Update: I’m wondering why the Administration thought it would be helpful to have Larry Summers appear on Sunday’s shows. With the rational part of the country wondering why the Administration isn’t building public and Congressional support for a plan to provide at least 300,000 new jobs a month for the next five years — per Krugman, that’s what it would take to get back even (or maybe it takes 7 years?) — why would they send Summers out to crow that unemployment might actually turn positive by some tiny amount by next Spring?

Update II. Apparently, Summers’ mission was to say that for now job creation is more important than the deficit. That’s good to hear, but the better experts have been saying that for months, while the economic team coddled the deficit scolds, making the political task harder. Where’s the jobs plan for reducing unemployment to below 7-8 percent by next Fall, and where’s the Administration’s commitment to hold the economic team responsible for getting it done?