Maybe NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz is thinking of joining thecircus.

During her recent speech on the agency's regulatory agenda, Matztried to do the rhetorical equivalent of a high-wire act.

As befits an appointee of a Democratic administration, duringher speech at NAFCU's Congressional Caucus she spoke at greatlength of the agency's responsibilities for ensuring the safety andsoundness of the credit union system. She emphasized the need forstronger regulations of CUSOs and interest rate risk.

However, given the challenging economic climate and PresidentObama's uphill struggle to win a second term, the chairman alsotalked about instances in which the agency will offer regulatoryrelief so credit unions can do more to serve the needs of theirmembers. She noted that the agency was expanding some of theexemptions to regulations that previously only applied to CAMEL 1and 2 credit unions (under the RegFlex program) to all creditunions.

The CUSO and interest rate risk rules are part of what creditunion leaders and their trade associations gripe about when theyexpress concern about what they see as an excessive regulatoryburden. CUNA and NAFCU repeatedly contend that credit unions arethe most regulated of all financial institutions.

To be sure, finding a trade association that doesn't think itsindustry is overregulated is as likely as finding a 5-year-old whothinks his or her parents lets them eat enough candy.

Quantifying the claim that credit unions bear the heaviestregulatory burden is hard to do. It's almost as challenging astrying to settle argument whether Derek Jeter or Cal Ripken is abetter shortstop.

Matz (who as Yankee fan would certainly come down on the side ofJeter) understands the value of nuance and balance when writingrules.

In her last stint on the NCUA board, she voted against a seriesof corporate credit union regulations because they weren't strongenough. However, she often notes that when she was the chiefoperation officer at Andrews FCU, she was frustrated by some of theregulations that the credit union had to comply with.

Matz isn't the first NCUA head to talk about wanting to take abalanced approach to rulemaking and enforcement.

In his first speech during the one year he spent as NCUAchairman, Michael Fryzel said he favored a level of regulation thatwas “as minimal as possible, as much as necessary.”

Fryzel was an appointee of President George W. Bush and tookoffice in August 2008, just as the severity of the financial crisiswas becoming apparent. His approach to regulation was acceptableenough to the Obama administration that he remained as chairman forthe first eight months that Obama was in office.

During his chairmanship, the agency flexed its muscle. First, bypumping money into WesCorp and U.S. Central and subsequentlyconserving the two troubled corporate credit unions.

Both Presidents Bush were what some might call “big governmentconservatives” and weren't afraid to expand the reach ofgovernment.

The first President Bush signed the Americans with DisabilitiesAct into law. This measure, which was passed by a DemocraticCongress, added to the requirements that businesses had to complywith in order to make their facilities more accessible to personswith physical challenges.

By contrast, while Democrats are often more supportive of heavyregulation, there have been some notable exceptions to thatpattern.

President Clinton pushed for, and Congress passed, legislationthat for the first time since the 1930s allowed bank holdingcompanies to own other financial firms. That measure was enactedduring a time of economic prosperity, and there are some who arguethat the banks used their new powers to take excessive risk thathelped trigger the recent economic meltdown.

Obama, who in some ways marketed himself as an anti-Clinton whenhe sought his party's nomination in 2008, is realizing that alittle deregulation may not be so bad.

He has been urging both executive departments and independentagencies to find ways to get rid of unnecessary rules that hamperjob growth and innovation. This effort will probably continue atleast until next year's election.

That's why you don't have to buy tickets to Ringling Brothers tosee dramatic demonstrations of balancing acts. Just look at a copyof the Federal Register.