…And the ten questions that every member of Congress should answer, to their constituents, before they vote “Yes” on the bailout.

I painfully watched the “60 Minutes” interview with Secretary Hank Paulson last night.

I was frustrated at the interviewer Scott Pelley’s inability to ask the really important questions. Instead, all we got were easy softballs that facilitated the requisite platitudes and generalities of your average Bush-appointed hack (see Brown, Michael and Gonzales, Alberto).

What we should have heard from Pelley:

1. “Why did the original proposal include ZERO oversight mechanisms?”

2. “The US is a Republic, founded on the idea that citizens entrust their elected officials to legislate on their behalf. Why did the original proposal bypass the people’s houses, allowing the Secretary full control of the proceedings?”

These, pun intended, are the money questions. In all seriousness, does Paulson truly believe that he should have the ultimate authority? Can he at least admit this?

3. “How does handing over $700 billion to Wall Street help the economy any more than, say, handing over $700 billion to homeowners, or spending $700 billion on a full employment program?”

This is straight from David Sirota. He may be controversial in the blogosphere, but his advocacy of a populist economic agenda is a wonderful contrast to the DC/Wall Street Establishment that acts like working-class Americans are merely fodder for their profit-making enterprises.

Hell, I’d even say it outweighs any of his occasional self-promoting. Perhaps even justifies it.

4. “If either way we are ‘rewarding irresponsibility’, why not go for a more efficient route: Toxic mortgage-backed securities are largely behind the economic troubles, so why shouldn’t we offer low-interest loans to the defaulting homeowners and bypass the middleman entirely?”

We could require that the loans only be used towards their mortgages. We should also include assistance for those of us who were not recipients of the bad luck that often leads to financial difficulty and foreclosure.

Also, the bill should offer some goodies for those of us who were responsible enough to predict that seeking a $350,000 mortgage on $2500 a month in earnings is worthy of some Bad Idea Jeans.

5. “Would you support Senator Bernie Sanders proposal for a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout? Why or why not?”

Sanders serves as a great Progressive Soundcheck – as much (if not more) than any member of Congress within the last 30 years, if he supports an idea, it is definitely worth a legitimate examination.

6. “why not eliminate the $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory?”

This emanates from economist James Galbraith, who is not related to medical marijuana advocate (and ultimate bad-ass) Gatewood Galbraith, but is the son of you know who. Among the alternative policy ideas, this is the most pro-wealth. However, it provides a necessary psychological lift without a massive financial outlay.

7. According to the legislation:

“The Financial Stability Oversight Board …will include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary. Aren’t these the same individuals that allowed the problem to occur in the first place? Why should we trust them to fix the problem they created?”

This question reminds me of a moronic variant of “3-card Monte”. It’s the equivalent of offering someone a Twenty-dollar bill for their lawnmower, than countering their rejection by offering them two crisp 10-dollar bills.

How f*cking stupid do they think we are?

8. “Why not institute economist James Galbraith’s plan, which aims to shore up and expand the FDIC, create a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrect Nixon’s federal revenue sharing, and taxstock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal?”

Back to Galbraith again. I need to learn more about how such a proposal would work. However, it sure merits more discussion than the Boehner thrown at us by Pelosi and Paulson.

9. “Can you explain the process behind the selection of the 700 billion figure?”

The fact that we even have to ASK this question is almost as pathetic as the losers who walked away with multi-million dollar severances. Speaking of said douche-nozzles:

10. “The current bill has language restricting future ‘Golden Parachute’ severance packages, but allows those that are currently in place. Why should we reward these failures with our tax dollars when people are losing their homes?”

See response to #9. But with much more violent anger. Seriously, I want to see some CEOs in prison for what they did to us (especially the a-holes that financed politicians that opposed humane prison reform).

And…most importantly, a bonus…

11. “Can you, Secretary Paulson, promise that you will never accept employment with a company that receives funds from this bailout? And will you promise that you will sell all stock in your possession in
companies that will benefit from this bailout?”

We need to make sure that he does not, as Rep James McDermott eloquently stated, “throw a pass to himself”.

Imagine how made you’ll be when you open the January 21, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal, and see his smiling mug standing next to one of the bailed-out brickfaces, with the headline “Paulson accepts 50 MM offer to lead Washington Mutual”, or some other crooked bunch of losers.

That will definitely kill your buzz at Obama’s inauguration.