Are you in favor of more programs for first-time buyers?

First-time purchasers make-up roughly 40 percent of all realty buyers. This market is now served by any number of existing programs which allow individuals to purchase with 5 percent down or less. Indeed, those with qualifying military service can purchase a home with no money down while FHA borrowers pay just 3 percent up-front plus closing costs.

Given that the marketplace is already saturated with numerous funding options for first-time buyers, the addition of new programs at taxpayer cost is needless and unnecessary. The only exception is in the case of so-called trust lands such as Indian reservations where residents are unable to obtain private-sector financing.

Do you agree that HUD should be expanded?

HUD has grown to the point where management and efficiency are obvious problems. The Department's own Inspector General has ruled that HUD violated federal laws by using taxpayer money to lobby Congress, it has collected billions of dollars in excess FHA insurance fees from the borrowers it's supposed to protect, and it is requiring appraisers to act as home inspectors -- even though appraisers are not trained to perform such work.

Equally remarkable, while HUD routinely makes discrimination claims, it's worth noting that the current HUD secretary is now the subject of a complaint alleging sexual discrimination and harassment, according to The Washington Post. ("Discrimination Complaint Filed In Dispute at HUD," Oct. 18, 2000)

While any politician would like to have a department like HUD because of the patronage opportunities it offers, a better choice would be to eliminate HUD, set up FHA as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and return the billions of dollars saved to the states or use it to reduce the national debt -- something which would help lower interest rates and thus benefit everyone.

How should we continue our efforts to preserve endangered species?

The difficult realty that not all species can be protected. The question ought to be: Are we obligated to save the "Dehli Sands flower-loving fly" at any cost -- as we are under current rules -- or is there a point where our money is better spent on healthcare, tuition, and more dollars for Social Security? In other words, there is a need for the reasoned application of cost/benefit analysis.

Should we tighten laws to expand clean air and water protections?

We have made enormous environmental progress and the results include cleaner electrical generating stations, reduced auto emissions, and better waste disposal.

The issue here is how much further should we go. Cars built in this decade are already 99 percent cleaner than the autos produced in the 1960s, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Consider an electric car that emits no CO2. Should such vehicles be mandated by law? An electric car relies on electricity and that electricity must be generated somewhere. In effect, there's a trade: No CO2 from electric cars but more pollution at the electrical generation plant. So, sometimes, we need to recognize that we've done well to date with many environmental issues and also that there can never be environmental perfection.

But aren't all environmental policies entirely good?

Many environmental policies are useful and on target, others are the product of good intentions and sometimes go too far. In September, for example, firefighters had to cut down trees by hand in Western states because environmental rules prohibit the use of bulldozers in certain areas. The use of fire retardants, as another example, are banned in national parklands. It doesn't make much sense to advocate the protection of forested areas and then prohibit the most efficient means of defending them.

Isn't it true that consumer groups and environmental organizations represent the public interest while associations and industry groups are only concerned about their clients?

Consumer groups and environmental organizations have an understandable desire to project their interests and increase their budgets -- just like any corporation. They play an important role in the political process -- there is, after all, a "green" party with a viable and credible candidate for president. What's best for the public is to consider the ideas and views of all players to see which positions make the most sense. Debates about motivations and claims of purity only obscure the core issues being discussed.

What policies should we undertake to limit global warming?

It's not entirely clear that global warming is significantly influenced by human activity. For instance, a number of studies suggest that global warming may be partially and even largely related to electromagnetic changes inside the sun.

As well, global warming treaties now direct the U.S. to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases while excluding most other countries from equivalent standards. The result is that greenhouse gases continue to be produced worldwide while U.S. industries face higher costs, thus making them less competitive.

Lastly, it may be that global warming has benefits we should value such as a longer growing season, less fuel consumption, and reduced dependence on foreign oil sources. More food and lower energy costs are important matters worldwide.

Which Smart Growth policies do you support to make America's cities more livable?

Who says "Smart Growth" policies will make cities more livable? It's a wonderful term, but what exactly is being advocated?

Metro areas are expanding for the simple reason that our national population is growing and relatively few people opt to live in rural areas. There's no shortage of land and no shortage of farm land.

Do Smart Growth advocates favor mandatory birth control, ala China, to hold down metro populations? Perhaps they prefer disincentives that force people into rural areas, such as stiff minimum home prices.

The reality is that we have a free and mobile population. We've also had community planning and zoning rules for decades and it's these rules which are partially responsible for metropolitan growth. For instance, minimum lot sizes assure that communities with rising populations must geographically expand.

The best approach is to let the marketplace allocate property values. Without artificial restraints communities will grow in a rational manner. Of course, this simple and easy approach to growth means that many Smart Growth advocates, regulators, planners, and grant recipients will need to find actual employment, but that seems like a casualty with which the rest of us can live.

You have time before the elections to study the candidates, consider their opinions, and vote as you prefer. It's an opportunity unavailable in many countries, and one that should be used. And if you don't like this year's political options, then start now to look for parties and candidates who better reflect your views so that in the next election cycle politicians more to your liking will be on the ballot.

Save Money Financing & Refinancing

The latest edition of The Common-Sense Mortgage -- routinely among the top-ten best selling real estate books nationwide -- is available in bookstores online and off. In print for nearly 15 years and widely recognized as the standard consumer guide to real estate financing, it's described by syndicated columnist Robert Bruss as "an encyclopedic, detailed summary of just about everything real-estate investors, agents, lenders and borrowers want and need to know about mortgages."

"On my scale of one to 10," says Bruss, "this superb book rates a 10."

"This continues to be the most, lucid, comprehensive treatment of the subject on the market," says The Real Estate Professional. "If you want solid, reliable information about residential real estate financing, written in a thoughtful, convincing style, this is your source."

For additional information, press here.

Question Of The Week

Q Is all the interest paid for 125 percent financing tax deductible?

A Interest secured by real estate is generally deductible, but with 125 percent financing the loan amount exceeds the value of the property, thus interest on a portion of the loan may not be deductible.

To confirm and for details, speak with a tax professional before obtaining such loans.

Weekly Resource