I agree with this too...

The president has endorsed a tax on banks by size to collect a projected $90 billion over the next 10 years. The president argues that the tax will help repay taxpayer losses in the TARP bailout program for banks.

It’s a crummy argument. Most of the TARP losses will be racked up not at banks, but at the AIG insurance company and the rescued automakers, GM and Chrysler. No tax for them.

Meanwhile, banks that received not a dime from TARP will be taxed.

I get it that people want to punish banks. Banks lobbied to change laws to allow them to undertake riskier activities. Then when the risks went bad, they begged for public money to rescue themselves. They got it too, and now they are paying their top people huge bonuses to thank them for profits really owed to public generosity.

So the desire to punish is understandable. But punishment is a bad basis for taxation.
The new tax won’t be applied to bonus pools. It will be applied to banks by asset size, meaning based on the amount of lending they do. But of course the big problem of the moment is that banks are not lending nearly enough.

How does it make sense to punish banks for doing more of what we should want them to do?

Read more here: Obama's Bank Tax Flunks on Every Count - David Frum