I am going to annoy, anger and irritate a lot of my fellow real estate agents with this.

Let the $8000 first time home buyer tax credit expire at the end of November. Congress should not vote to extend it.

It is not that I want the market to slow further, prices to drop more or the real estate market overall to get worse than it currently is.

I do have several reasons for my belief that we should let it go...for  now.

1. Deadlines are good!

The credit was out there a long time before people really started to focus and pay attention. What got them to pay attention was a deadline! An indefinite tax credit does very little to help the market. Human nature is to procrastinate. Deadlines give them a reason to stop procrastinating.

2. Fraud

Apparently there have been a fair number of people claiming the credit who are not eligible for it. These are people who are either not first time home buyers, or who never actually even bought a house. The IRS is not requiring proof that you qualify for this tax credit and so there are some people taking advantage. If you're tempted, be aware that there are now over 100,000 tax returns flagged for an audit because of this and one tax preparer is already headed to jail!

Let them work out these issues before they give another tax credit or extend this one.

3. Assess

There are a multitude of arguments both for and against extending this tax credit. Each side has their economists with their data. Let's take some time to assess how much good this is doing and whether to extend it and what form that extension should take. Should it be more or less than $8000? Should it apply to more than first time home buyers? The current guidelines are not because data showed this was the best solution. It was a political compromise. Why not look at actual data now, analyze it and determine what makes sense?

I'm not anti-credit. I'm pro a thoughtful approach to this.

Last week, in the House of Representatives, they finally voted on the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008". This bill is designed to help stem the tide of foreclosures. It would not only help people who are in danger of losing their homes, but also their neighbors who are tired of seeing the value of their own homes plummet.

It is very interesting to note that the counties hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, not one of the representatives from Virginia voted to support this bill.

Representatives Cantor, Davis, Wolf and Wittman all voted no on this bill.

Let's be clear about what they voted against.

This bill would have allowed homeowners to stay in their homes, restructured their mortgage to reduce the amount owed to more accurately reflect actual values and guaranteed those loans through the FHA. It would have rewarded buyers of foreclosed properties with tax credits, thus helping all homeowners.

It's tough to see what could possibly have induced them to vote no. That's especially true when their Republican counterparts in other hard hit areas of the country crossed party lines to support the bill.

I know the argument about not wanting the people who were responsible to suffer to help those who were not. But NEWS FLASH: if you were very financially responsible and because of all the foreclosures in the area your home prices are plummeting you're still paying the price.

The question isn't whether those of us who were responsible pay for those who weren't. The question is do all of us want to preserve the value of our homes?

So, does party loyalty count more than constituent pain?

I had lunch with a number of business friends the other day and, of course, the conversation turned to the current real estate market and then to the actions currently being contemplated by Congress to fix it.

Every fix seemed to have a down side for someone. And, then one of my friends stated what was staring us all in the fact. "I guess no one said it was going to be fair."

 What I'd like to see is everyone staying focused on the larger picture, rather than whether someone else is going to get a "better deal" out of any particular piece of legislation.

If your neighbor got himself in trouble with his mortgage and the government helps him out, one way to look at that is that he got bailed out for his recklessness or stupidity and that you got no reward for being a responsible adult.

But the other way to see this is that if his house goes into foreclosure, your property value declines. And, if several houses in your neighborhood go into foreclosure, your property value declines steeply, crime rises in the neighborhood and a whole host of bad things follow!

While it may be more morally satisfying to watch people get what they deserve, it is also, in this instance, cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Sometimes, looking out for your neighbor turns out to be a good thing for you too!