It was just a year ago the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system was endangered by the threat of systemic collapse, brought about by the implosion of the nation’s residential mortgage market. Much has been done since then to overcome that root problem. But now the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system is again imperiled. Only this time it’s by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.

Anyone with trepidation over such a statement need only look at the attack launched last week on Federal Reserve governor Daniel Tarullo by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Tarullo told the Finance Committee that the Fed is about to put in place a regulation forcing banks to get customers’ permission before enrolling them in automatic overdraft protection programs. The regulation would also demand that banks clearly spell out all the rules, and fees, of such programs.

Banks nationally took in about $38.5 billion in such fees last year, almost double the $20.5 billion in fees they earned on credit card penalties.

With consumers squeezed by rising unemployment, stagnant or declining wages, and reduced access to credit, there has been much attention paid to the fees banks charge customers. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such monitoring. And the Fed’s tack of forcing institutions to be upfront about the rules and costs, and to make such programs opt-in rather than opt-out, is a reasonable framework for resolution.

But in the highly-charged world of politics – where every consumer is a helpless Nell Fenwick and every banker a villainous Snidely Whiplash – the solons scramble over each other to see who will be the heroic Dudley Do-Right. The problem is they forget that Do-Right was a bumbling nincompoop.

Last week, the starring role went to Sen. Schumer. The senior Empire State senator was convulsed over his view that regulators seemed more invested in protecting the financial condition of banks than the financial condition of consumers.

The first and foremost role of banking regulators is protecting the safety and soundness of the banks. The banks’ customers will benefit from having strong and solid banks. Society will benefit from having stable sources of finance. The economy will benefit by having viable financial institutions greasing the wheels of commerce with capital.

Should regulators have more invested in protecting the financial condition of banks? Of course they should, and Schumer is smart enough to know it. But that kind of position doesn’t make for great media exposure.

A bank, by the way, is a business. It must bring in revenue to offset expenses. When expenses go up – and loan losses are certainly expenses – adding to revenue is the natural and necessary counterbalance. Revenue comes from customers. So if there’s any balance sheet-shoring up going on, it will indeed be customers who bear the brunt of it. Who else could? Other than, that is, Mr. Schumer giving away more taxpayer dollars. And isn’t that, after all, the consumers’ money, too?

Schumer and others similarly want to regulate how much banks can charge for such fees. All of these actions fly completely against the best and least expensive regulator there is: the free market.

If consumers are truly upset over high fees, they’ll find other banks – dare we say it: or credit unions! – with policies that aren’t so fiscally torturous. If the fees they’re charged aren’t enough to motivate them to change institutions, then they certainly shouldn’t be enough to call forth more legislation.

In banking, especially, it’s critical to understand that treating banks like social service organizations rather than as complex financial institutions will only lead to disaster. The regulation of banks ought to be primarily one of safety and soundness. Ingratiating themselves to the electorate, lawmakers will vow to bring banks to their knees. Of course, they might very well succeed. And then we will all wonder: Why was government not looking out to make sure the banks were safe and sound?