Fear not, says Rep. Grayson, author of the “pay for performance” bill. He only wants to cap the pay of employees at companies that got TARP money. Left unmentioned: The fact that Barney Frank’s goals are a tad more ambitious than that. This is the camel’s nose inside the tent, in other words, and Cavuto knows it, which is why he can’t help turning apoplectic halfway through. Grayson defended the bill recently in a post at HuffPo but don’t look for any guidance there on what is and isn’t “excessive.” In fact, your time’s better spent reading George Will’s op-ed on whether TARP is unconstitutional insofar as it represents a grant of discretion from Congress to the President so sweeping and ill-defined as to violate separation of powers. Arguably, this bill does too:

The Supreme Court has said: “That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” And the court has said that properly delegated discretion must come with “an intelligible principle” and must “clearly delineate” a policy that limits the discretion. EESA flunks that test.

Does Grayson’s bill clearly delineate limits on Geithner’s discretion to decide what constitutes excessive pay? If it does, he forgot to mention it in eight minutes of badgering.

The interview was recorded last night, incidentally. The second clip comes from today’s “Your World,” in which Cavuto, in the clear light of day, had an unexpected change of heart.