As the year draws to an end it's not only important to ask who was naughty or nice, it's also time for a little accounting.

It was in 2002 when HUD Secretary Mel Martinez told the world that consumers could save as much as $10 billion a year by making the settlement process more competitive. Martinez -- now a Republican senator from Florida -- offered a simple proposal: Instead of buyers and sellers purchasing settlement services one transaction at a time, lenders should buy closing services in bulk and charge their direct costs to consumers.

In the same way that Wal-Mart has forced down manufacturing costs by buying on a massive scale, the same principle would be at work with settlement providers, title insurance companies and legal services.

The real estate community promptly responded to the Martinez proposal with a reasonable alternative: Instead of just lenders offering closing services in bulk, why not other players in the private sector? More competition would be good for consumers, it was argued.

Whether you like the so-called "one package" program from Martinez or the "two package" alternative from the real estate community, the point is that massive savings would be available to the public, savings that would lower closing costs and make homes more affordable.

And so as we begin 2008 you might want to ask: Whatever happened to the idea of competitive closings? How come we're not saving $10 billion a year? Why do closings continue to cost so much?

Just think about it. If open competition means that American consumers will save $10 billion a year, it also means that title companies, lawyers and others can no longer stiff the public. But nothing has happened in Washington, and the result is that five years and $50 billion have been lost.

You have to admit, a few million dollars a year for lobbyists and PAC contributions has really paid off. Though not for you, of course.