Why I think that it's a mistake for Latter-day Saints to support Mitt Romney

While I don't have a problem with people who support Governor Romney based on his record as a businessman, I have a huge problem with his record as a governor. It's atrocious, and what's more, it's nothing like what he's trying to cast himself as now: a fiscal and social conservative. If Governor Romney wins another office and actually develops the record of a fiscal conservative, then I may support him in a future election (if I can convince myself that he has actually had a true change of heart where his political ideologies are concerned).

And, while I don't think that government has any business trying to regulate social norms, and therefore find social conservatives who try to dictate morals through legislation to be antithetical to liberty (and the development and wise use of free agency by individual citizens), I also have a huge problem with how Governor Romney is trying to portray himself as a social conservative, when his prior history and statements are clearly and unequivocally NOT those of a social conservative. Again, since I lean Libertarian, I wouldn't have a problem with him being a social moderate, I just have a problem with him not being honest with the public about his views. It's especially disturbing since his stated views always adapt to whatever will garner him the most support with his current electorate (people can grow in their views, but it's suspicious when their growth matches whatever is the most popular for the group they're in). I think that any Latter-day Saint who is so obviously willing to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14), will reflect poorly on the faith as a whole. If Governor Romney actually becomes President of the United States, then he'll be one of the most visible people in the entire world, and the most visible and widely recognized Mormon. Do we really want to be represented by someone who is unwilling to hold to and stand up for his own values every time he runs for office? He's either ashamed of who he is politically, or willing to change to whatever will garner the most support (regardless of how it contradicts his prior stances).

If I had to guess, then I would say that much as President George W. Bush was shaped by his father's re-election defeat and decided on a no-holds-barred approach to his own political future, Governor Romney decided early on that he would redeem his own father's political legacy, and that the ends would justify the means. This is par for the course for politicians, but in this case, the politician has portrayed himself as a shining light of the LDS faith. However, Latter-day Saints strive for integrity. Following is the Wikipedia definition for integrity (emphasis added).

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

As far as I know, Governor Romney has demonstrated exemplary integrity as a businessman, spouse, father, and Church leader. The integrity of his personal life is not in question. The integrity of his political ideology is horribly questionable. In the rest of his life, it would be ridiculous to even bring up the word "hypocrisy", but where his politics are concerned it is distressingly apt. Explaining his prior record — especially where healthcare and the expansion of government is concerned — requires painful, disturbing contortions.

People can genuinely grow and mature in their political ideologies. My own political ideologies evolved during college, and enormously in the past four years. (I once ridiculed someone for suggesting that government could subsist on a flat income tax / tithe of 10%. Now, I would argue that government doesn't even deserve 10%.) However, I am happy to acknowledge my prior political views and then explain how they've grown and evolved since then. Governor Romney is unwilling to own his past views. Rather than explaining them, he engages in the aforementioned wild contortions to claim that we just didn't understand what he was saying or doing then. Governor Romney seems to be ashamed of his own political fruits.

There's a chance that having Governor Romney as President will be a boon for the Church. Based on Governor Romney's record, I would put this chance at 30% or less. There is the far greater likelihood of at least 70% that his political contortions will tarnish the image of the Church and its members in the hearts and minds of those who do not already know us well. They will assume that we are power hungry, willing to do and say whatever it takes to achieve office — that we are lacking in integrity when it comes to public matters. While that may be true of Governor Romney, that's not the values of the Church nor the vast majority of its members.

Again, if people support Governor Romney because of his business record, then I say go for it. I doubt that anyone supports him because of his politics, because they change so much that no one has any idea what his political values really are. If, however, people are supporting him because he is a member of the Church, then I think that it's a big mistake because Governor Romney will most likely be a huge setback for people's understanding of the Church and what it really represents — a faith of deep integrity, whose members are willing to stand up for their values, their Savior, and their God, at all times and in all places, and through this come to know and draw closer to Them.

RE: Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element

Response to Anti-war blog's post "Gary Johnson – 'Libertarian' Candidate – is Out of His Element":
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/04/12/gary-johnson-libertarian-candidate-is-out-of-his-element/


Great points, especially since it's early days in the Libertarian presidential primaries. There's still time for one of the other Libertarian candidates to gain traction on this issue, which would either force Governor Johnson to arrive at clarity on the issue, or lose ground. I agree, Governor Johnson's foreign policy is muddy at best, and is certainly suspect. Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above Governor Johnson on this issue.

However, as context is everything, I think that it would be helpful if you compared Governor Johnson's positions with those of Governor Romney, and the actual record of President Obama. Governor Romney would almost surely continue the status quo Republican hawkishness. President Obama's foreign policy record has been a disaster (countless zero-due-process assassinations including those of AMERICAN CITIZENS, none of which the administration has not bothered to justify -- not that there can be a justification of assassination; flipping his position repeatedly on Guantanamo Bay, occupation of Iraq, and occupation of Afghanistan). When you contrast Governor Johnson with the leading Republican and Democratic candidates, he starts to look really good, even in his muddled, incomprehensible state. The problem is, if you merely attack Governor Johnson, most readers will assume that you're encouraging them to support either President Obama, or Governor Romney, either of which would be a mistake.

And, since it's always preferable to suggest alternatives when pointing out short-comings, whose positions would you support? Who's got it right?

You could probably tack on three or four sentences and cover all of this, and would provide a more complete picture for readers, and hopefully not lead them to think that Governor Johnson is less preferable than President Obama or Governor Romney on this issue, because he's certainly not. As a FAR greater lover and advocate of liberty and freedom than either of the establishment candidates, he'd be superior to either of them. His foreign policy positions have slowly been evolving, and as best as I can tell they've always changed for the better (as opposed to either Governor Romney or President Obama). He'd eventually come around to the position that you and I share, but, I agree, let's get his thinking clear now rather than after a costly failed foray or two.

RE: 20 Something Finance's post "Is the U.S. Vs. International Stock Allocation 80/20 Rule a Conspiracy?"

This post is a response to the 20 Something Finance blog post "Is the U.S. Vs. International Stock Allocation 80/20 Rule a Conspiracy?" and the comments on the blog post.


A very well done, thought-provoking analysis. I actually have about 40% invested in foreign markets (I use what's essentially an Aronson lazy portfolio). I think that there's a really good reason for most people to keep the vast majority of their investments in U.S. companies, though. (And, in fact, for anyone in any country to invest primarily in their own country.) Why? Because unless you're willing to move abroad, your primary concern is growing wealth *in your own currency*, and at least parallel to your peers. Remember, diversification is about managing and spreading risk, and only secondarily about taking advantage of opportunities.

Another one of the commenters compared the 80/20 domestic/foreign advice with the advice that people should never invest more than 10% in their own employer (and really, not more than 5% in any one investment). If you both work for a company and invest in it, you're increasing your dependence on that single company and the risk that that company will severely impair your finances *relative to your peers*. 99+% of the country will not be working at that same company, so your finances will have gone down the tube, but the rest of the country will barely have noticed. Your relative wealth has spiraled, as has your buying power and ability to provide for yourself and your family — compared to everyone else around you. Additionally, you're now working somewhere else.

So there are two factors:
1. Finances compared to peers
2. Ability to leave "bankrupt company" (country in our case)

Neither of these factors are true in domestic vs foreign investing. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true for most people. Let's consider the two extreme cases to understand why this is dangerous. I know that neither one of these cases are terribly likely (world economies are too tightly knit), but you have to understand where you're assigning risk.

* Case 1: The finances of the U.S. fall apart relative to the rest of the world

** Let's assume that you do invest 80-90% in foreign investments (the opposite of the traditional advice).

In this case, you're rich! You're on top of the world and your finances are vastly improved compared to your peers (your countrymen). Most of the rest of the country is poor! Great! You can stay in the U.S., live well, and hopefully you'll help out some of your peers (voluntarily, of course — what's with government believing that spreading wealth under the threat of criminal prosecution is going to improve society?).

** Let's assume that you keep the traditional 80/20 domestic/foreign allocation.

Yeah, you missed out on becoming rich compared to the rest of your peers (the country), but it's not nearly as big of a deal as your employer going under. Your buying power has remained the same relative to your peers. Now, would you leave the U.S. to seek better economic opportunities? Leave your extended family? Possibly learn another language if all the English-speaking countries hit the fan? Most Americans want to die Americans. That could change, but things would have to get pretty dire. You'd probably just stick it out here knowing that you have it no worse than anyone else you know.

* Case 2: The finances of the rest of the world fall apart, but the U.S. stays strong

** Let's assume that you do invest 80-90% in foreign investments (the opposite of the traditional advice).

In this case, you're screwed. Relative to all of your peers (the rest of the country), you're broke. Well, in this debt- and consumer-oriented country most everyone is broke, so that just aligns you with your peers. However, in your own mind, you know that you went from believing that you had very carefully managed your finances, to having much, much less. At least there's a strong government to provide your Social Security.

** Let's assume that you keep the traditional 80/20 domestic/foreign allocation.

In this case, your finances haven't changed much relative to your peers. Life goes on in the U.S.. You're really glad that you don't live abroad.

So, the risk is really that you could be left with nothing relative to your peers. That only happens if you buck the traditional allocation advice. I'm a Libertarian, I have nothing against bucking the status quo, but in this case, I would recommend against it. The vast majority of people retire in their own countries, which means that they need their investments to maintain value in their own countries. What happens in other countries may present a lot of opportunity — or it may present a lot of risk — but you're not retiring in those countries so you want to make what happens in them is secondary as far as your investments go.

Roth IRAs, investment strategy, dividend-paying Vanguard funds

[In response to a question about Roth IRAs and Vanguard dividend funds.]

Yes, the individual max for a single year is $5,000. However, you can actually make your 2011 Roth IRA contribution until Tax Day (usually April 15th, but this year it's Tuesday, April 17th for some reason). So, you could actually contribute $5,000 for 2011 and have until next April to contribute your $5,000 for 2012 (but could have done it as early as January 1st, 2012, so you could contribute $10,000 for yourself right now).

Additionally, you could contribute that same $10,000 for your spouse ($5,000 for 2011, and $5,000 for 2012) as long as her retirement plan at work is not an IRA (contributions to a traditional IRA reduce dollar-for-dollar the amount that you can contribute to a Roth IRA, but 401k contributions don't count against IRA contributions). So, you could actually potentially contribute $20,000 total right now if you wanted to!

Each of those years you would have to have a combined income of at least the $10,000 that you're contributing for that year. As far as income limits, I think that they're $105K for individual filers ($120k for partial contribution), and $169k for joint filers ($179k for partial contribution). For Vanguard, the minimum to open a Roth IRA account is $3,000. I agree that Vanguard is still the best place to open a Roth IRA account : ).

You can be a little more aggressive with contributing to Roth IRAs because you can withdraw what you contributed (the principal) at any time WITHOUT taxes or penalties (which can be handy in the cases of financial hardship or large one-time needs like a downpayment on a home). Earnings on your contributions CANNOT be distributed until retirement — without incurring a 10% penalty. So, you could consider moving some of your emergency savings into your Roth IRA, since you can pull them out without penalty if you really had to. That way you can take advantage of more of the maximums that you're allowed to contribute. So, for example, if you've contributed $20K over 4 years, but your Roth IRA is now worth $23K, then you could take out the $20K with no penalties, but would be penalized if withdrew any part of the $3K earnings.

I am still a huge fan of focusing on dividend / income producing stocks. Smart Money's Jack Hough (yes, that's really his name), a dividend advocate, notes that "Over the eight decades ended September 2010, dividends contributed 44% of S&P 500 total returns, according to research by Fidelity Investments." A lot more attention is being paid to dividends, so yields are being squeezed, but you can still count on dividends accounting for much of overall growth (especially if you're cherry-picking the best dividends rather than the total market as a whole), and being a safer way to achieve growth as well as sufficient funds in retirement. As with all investing, you should opt to reinvest dividends.

However, it's really risky to not have a balanced portfolio. You need a mix of large cap, mid-cap, and small cap, domestic, foreign, emerging markets, bonds, treasuries, and even total market. The promise of target date retirement funds is to cover all of that for you, with a risk allocation appropriate for your age (getting gradually more conservative as you near retirement). In general, target date retirement funds haven't had the best track record, but they've gotten a lot better; and Vanguard's have always been pretty good. Clark Howard (my favorite radio show / podcast ever... seriously, if you want common sense financial advice, as well as great tips on how to save — especially on travel, and how to avoid getting ripped off, then Clark Howard ought to be a centerpiece in your financial diet) has brought me around to the virtues of target date retirement funds. If you want your retirement investing to be as easy as possible, then target date retirement funds are the way to go. If you want to be more aggressive, then choose a fund that would have you retiring at age 70 or later (to give you a larger allocation of, and keep you weighted towards stocks for longer). If you want to be more conservative, then choose a fund that would have you retiring at age 60 or earlier (to give you a larger and earlier allocation of bonds). This won't change when the funds are available to you — just what your allocation and risk profile is.

If you want to be a little more hands on, then I would recommend going the Lazy Portfolio route. That lets you give more weight to asset classes that you're more comfortable with. Just remember to rebalance annually (or as you make contributions).

If you want to invest in individual stocks (as opposed to funds), then I recommend to people that they direct no more than 10% of their contributions towards individual stocks, and that 90% of it go to broad-ranging funds. So, for example a maximum of 10% saved goes towards individual stocks, and at least 90% saved goes towards a target date retirement fund. Or, 10% towards individual stocks, and 90% towards a lazy portfolio. Or no more than 10% towards individual stocks, at least 45% towards a target date retirement funds, and no more than 45% towards dividend focused funds. If you're actually a really good investor, even though you only direct 10% of your retirement savings towards individual stocks then that portion may grow substantially and be more than 10% of the actual value of your portfolio. However, you should continue to direct no more than 10% of your contributions towards individual stocks. Conversely, if you're really bad at picking stocks, then only 10% of your portfolio is shrinking. You can continue to direct 10% of your contributions towards individual stocks, but should NOT increase your allocation to compensate and bring the total value up to 10%.

And, it's always a good idea to practice dollar cost averaging. So, stick in the whole amount into the Roth IRA right now in a money market fund (whether it's $4K, $5K, or $20K), but purchase the stocks over time (a little each month). At Vanguard, this would be "Automatic exchange". In the future, you could also automate monthly contributions as well. Again, you'll have to start your purchase of any given fund with $3,000, but you can trickle in the remainder over the subsequent eleven months, or whatever, as long as it's at least $100 each month.

Vanguard has a number of GREAT dividend focused funds. I like them all for different reasons, so you should pick one that matches your investment philosophy and risk appetite. Here's the list of Vanguard funds. If it isn't already, then sort it by "SEC Yield". Read the "Product summary" and check the "Risk potential" for any that are of the Asset Classes "Stock - ..." or "Balanced" (or, check "Balanced" and "Stocks" in the "Asset class" filters to the left, but I kind of like seeing them in relation to the other funds). "Balanced" includes bonds and treasuries, as opposed to focusing just on stock dividends. Ignore any that are "Bond" as those will be covered in your target date retirement fund, as well as any that include the word "Admiral" in the title (unless you're willing to meet the $10K minimum). Focus on those that include either "Dividend" or "Income" in the title, as dividends and income are ancillary for any other funds and therefore more likely to fluctuate if their actual strategy results in lower dividends or income. And, you may want to focus on just those that hold primarily stocks (equities, see "Portfolio and Management" tab on each stock page to see holdings) as those with substantial bond holdings are likely to see a share price drop as bond prices return to historical norms (which means that yield will rise, but that means that you're better off waiting until then to purchase those funds as they'll be cheaper then). Of those that interest you, you can delve a little more into them (performance, portfolio, prospectus, reports, etc.).

I would start by allocating at least half into a Target Date Retirement fund. I'm pretty sure that you have to start with $3,000 in each fund even in Roth IRAs. So, to purchase two funds right now (target date retirement and dividend focused), you'd need to contribute at least $6,000. If that's true and you're contributing less than $6,000, then I would either start with the target date retirement fund, and then use next year's contribution to purchase the dividend fund, or vice versa (a year shouldn't really matter all that much, so you should be okay just getting the dividend fund). You can add to a fund that you already own in $100 increments.

$19 per month unlimited* calls, texts, data (Republic Wireless)

If you know someone who needs to have a cell phone, needs to save money, has WiFi (Wi-Fi) at home, and is willing to endure some hiccups while the company matures, then Republic Wireless is offering cell phone service with unlimited calls, texts, and data (apps and web browsing) for $19 per month. There is a one-time upfront cost of $199 for an Android smartphone, but there's no contract.

I heard about Republic Wireless from Clark Howard (Clark Howard has the BEST personal finance radio show / podcast. Aside from General Conference, he's pretty much the only thing that I listen to on my iPhone. I even use an app that allows me to use podcasts for my alarm). He's currently using the Republic Wireless phone. He has noted that call quality was initially noticeably bad, but that now people can't tell. He loves Republic Wireless, and avidly recommends it.

There are some catches right now:

1. The beta is currently full. They aren't accepting any users right now, but likely will each month and will notify you via email.
   
2. You MUST have access to WiFi at home (and at work, if possible).
3. The service is still working on "handing off" calls from WiFi to cell network, and vice versa. However, T-Mobile has "Wi-Fi Calling" (UMA) which provides great (although perhaps not perfect) transitions between calls, so everyone's expecting Republic Wireless to get that ironed out soon. This means that right now if you start a call at home on WiFi, then you can't just walk out to your car and continue the call. The call will drop as you leave your WiFi and you'll have to call them back on the cell network. Similarly, if you initiate a call from your car on the cell network, then when you get home the call doesn't switch to your WiFi (which means that it's being counted against your "usage" — more on that below).
4. The service is a community that offers "membership", but withdraws membership if you overuse the cell network (instead of using WiFi). The community's monthly fair usage threshold is to talk "550 minutes, send 150 texts, and download 300 megabytes of data" over the cell network. So, it's only truly unlimited over WiFi. They send you a warning the first time with suggestions on how to avoid hitting the caps. If they do have to revoke your membership, then they help you transition back to a regular provider. As long as you connect to Wi-Fi as much as possible wherever you are, then it's unlikely that you'll run up against this limit.
   
5. They only offer the service for a single phone (a low-end Android smartphone). So, no iPhones, and no cutting-edge Android phones (yet, they're expecting to gradually increase their selection).
   
6. There's an upfront cost of $199 to purchase the phone (but no contract).
   
7. You can't port your current phone number to Republic Wireless. They're working on this, though. In the meantime, you can port your number to Google Voice, and then pass calls and texts on to your Republic Wireless phone to achieve essentially the same thing. (Or, you could port to an intermediary if your network doesn't port directly to Google Voice.) Plus, if you use Google Voice, then you have access to voicemail transcriptions, texting from any computer, and a single number to ring all your phones, among other features. Yes, I love my Google Voice.
   
8. If multiple people are sharing a family plan since additional lines can be pretty cheap, then the cost savings may not justify the additional hassle while Republic Wireless is maturing their service. And, if only some of you switch to Republic Wireless, then those left behind may not be able to talk to you for free (since most in-network calls are free).
   

However, the advantages of Republic Wireless are pretty substantial:

1. Service is just $19 per month (max).
   
2. You get unlimited calls, texts, and data as long as most of it is over WiFi.
3. No contract.
4. It's a really inexpensive way for someone to switch to having a smartphone if they want to be able to use apps, and browse the web, and access email from their phone.
5. If there's somewhere where you have poor cellphone reception, but have access to wireless, then you may have better call quality over WiFi than over the cell network.
   

If you're accustomed to paying $80 a month ($960 a year), then paying $19 a month saves $61 a month ($732 a year). That's a hefty chunk of change, and likely worth the hassle if you're trying to make ends meet, just want to save all that money, or don't have a smartphone but would like to have one.

Vehicle make reliability

Adapted from an email follow-up to a conversation:

The most widely referenced report on car reliability is produced by Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports provides the most comprehensive, well-respected car reliability survey. They explain their method as follows: "Our data are based on an annual survey of subscribers to Consumer Reports and ConsumerReports.org and are not derived from road tests. A model needs at least 100 responses per model year for us to score it. From the survey, we create a reliability history for each model over the course of 10 years, 2001 to 2010. We use the data, in part, to forecast how well the 2011 models will hold up. We might predict reliability for a newly redesigned model, but only if previous versions had outstanding reliability."

Unfortunately, you have to subscribe in order to see the entire report. However, they do provide a summary of highlights for the 2011 findings. The fifth bullet point states "While European reliability had been improving, momentum seems to have stalled. All Porsche and Volvo models are rated average or better. But Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are among the worst automakers overall." Yep. So, basically, you have to get extremely lucky to get a reliable BMW.

Also, someone was kind enough to scan the ranking of manufacturers. BMW ranks 23 out of 27, just above Dodge and Chrysler, which basically means that they're in the pit of despair.

Unfortunately, it looks like Consumer Reports didn't include Land Rover in last year's survey. Perhaps they didn't get back 100 responses per model. Land Rover was purchased by Tata Motors (along with Jaguar), so the transition period may account for the low numbers of available surveys. However, I was able to find Land Rover in the second figure of this 2009 survey blog entry. It ranks last with Chrysler. Again, the pit of despair. Maybe it's good that Land Rover didn't even make the report this year. They'd probably be in either last or second to last. That blog entry also shows the average Volkswagen as having three times as many problems as the average Toyota.

JD Power and Associates does provide a car dependability survey, but they only look at a three year span. And, honestly, I don't know what to think of their report. It ranks Honda and BMW both at a three out of five, but Lincoln at five stars. That seems incredibly dubious. Land Rover scores two out of five. In their press release figure (after the text) Land Rover is third from the bottom.

And, here are some random car buying links:

An article from SmartMoney on "How to buy a car online for less".

An article on the nice surprises from Hyundai's new cars. There's still room for improvement, but they're outstanding value for your money.

The case for used cars

The car that I just purchased is a used 2010 Hyundai Sonata, but the Kelly Blue Book was $16,701 and I got it for $11,950 ($13,590.35 after taxes and fees). So, I saved almost $5,000 off blue book value; and around $8,000 off a new 2012 Hyundai Sonata (starts at $19,695, the GLS automatic starts at $21,470)!

The car has 25,486 miles on it, but seems almost new. A used Hyundai and Kia comes with the remainder of the 5 year / 60,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. Almost all other used cars (Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc.) come with the remainder of a 3 year / 36,000 mile warranty. On new cars, you would get those respective bumper-to-bumper warranties, plus a powertrain warranty (10 yrs / 100k miles for Hyundai & Kia, 5 yrs / 60k miles for almost all others) that doesn't transfer to subsequent owners. The powertrain warranty only covers if something goes wrong with the engine, driveshafts, etc..

If you're willing to, I highly recommend considering used cars. Cars depreciate very quickly. As soon as you've driven a new car off the lot, you've lost thousands of dollars in value. In the first year, new cars lose about 20% of their value. So you could save 20% just by buying a year-old car! After two years the average depreciation is about a THIRD of the original price of the car. I saved close to 40% by buying a used Sonata vs a new Sonata. In addition, taxes, registration, and insurance is more expensive for a new car versus a used car. Most financial planners will recommend that you buy a car that's 2-3 years old. At first I was looking for a car 3-5 years old, but I realized that I wanted to have some time left on the manufacturer's warranty, just in case. Going out to 5 years narrows your selection to Certified Pre-Owned vehicles, which is okay although you do incur a premium.

If you'd rather stick with new cars, then I totally understand, especially for girls. No one wants the hassle of his / her car breaking down, but it's much less likely that a car breaking down will leave a guy in an unsafe situation than it will for a girl, so a used car is generally less of a big deal for guys. I'm hoping that I've hedged my bets and that my car will both be significant savings and little to no hassle. We'll see! *Knock on wood!*

If you are willing to look at used cars, I highly recommend Wholesale Direct Auto Sales. They're a low volume, low cost dealer that works part-time out of an industrial lot southeast of the airport. It's by appointment only if you'd like to look at one of their cars. They will also go to the lot if you'd like to send a mechanic to check over one of their cars.

Vince Oddo
Wholesale Direct Auto Sales
4340 E Superior Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85040
480-229-9615
azauto@yahoo.com
http://heat21.com/

It's much easier to look at their cars on cars.com since you can filter for what you want:

    http://www.cars.com/for-sale/searchresults.action?stkTyp=U&dlId=3505475

In particular, the burgundy 2011 Kia Forte EX with 19,382 miles seems to be a killer deal. It's a great looking car with a very cool interior. The Kelly Blue Book value for the car is $16,628, but it's selling for $12,500. You'd get the remainder of the 5 yr / 60k mile manufacturer bumper-to-bumper warranty. This is the other car that I was seriously considering.

If you're willing to look for a used car, then I highly recommend cars.com (my favorite because you can limit your search to a much broader set of permutations of brands, sources, price ranges, age, etc.) and autotrader.com (filters only allow searching for three makes at a time, but more private sellers list on AutoTrader). Use Kelly Blue Book (kbb.com), edmunds.com, or nadaguides.com to see how much a car is worth. For the iPhone, the NADA app seems to be the quickest / easiest for pricing a used car.

Some other things that you'll want to keep in mind:

There's no sales tax on private sale (so from a regular person rather than a dealer), which can save you easily $1,000. I would only do this with cars with a good amount of warranty left, though.

I was shocked when Wholesale Direct Auto Sales charged me a $199 documentation / processing fee. He assured me that most dealers run $400-600. I've called five dealers (used and new), and they ran $390-500. I'm sure the $600 dealerships are luxury places like BMW or Lexus. I didn't bother calling them.

Figure in tax (9.3% in Phoenix, so $1,111.35 on my car), and registration (almost $300 in my case, but much higher on new cars — I shared a Google spreadsheet with you so you could calculate it for your own car). All in this added $1,640.35 to the $11,950 that I was expecting to pay for the car. The $13,950.35 number caused a great deal of sticker shock.

If you're going to get financing, then it's generally cheapest to get pre-approved somewhere, rather than using the dealer's car loans. You can check rates and find lenders at bankrate.com . As with any loan, the interest incurred means that you'll be paying more than you would have if you had paid in full up-front. Limit yourself to the shortest, smallest loan possible, with a maximum term of three years (otherwise, you're definitely buying more car than you can afford). You're going into debt for a depreciating asset, which only makes sense because it allows you to get to work.

As you consider brand, absolutely check to see where they rank on Consumer Reports reliability ratings. I'll send you another email about that.

Based on reliability and very subjective personal preference, this is the order that I used when looking at car brands:

1. Honda (king of reliability — excluding luxury brands — ever since Toyota slid)
2. (Toyota: used only; my parents have had so many bad experiences with getting their Toyotas serviced that if I were going to buy a new car, I wouldn't get a Toyota)
3. Hyundai (best value & warranty: 5yr / 60k miles; 10yr / 100k mile powertrain)
4. Kia (tied best value & warranty)
5. Mazda
6. (Scion: used only; Toyota's flashier brand)
7. Ford (the only American manufacturer with high reliability ratings, and also the only American manufacturer who didn't need a bailout this recession; dropped this past year in reliability ratings due to the use of Microsoft's mySync software, not due to any mechanical issues)

If you read the reviews for a lot of the Hyundais and Kias (for example on KBB.com), then you'll notice that the reviewers rave about how many more features you get while still paying less than what you would for the competing Honda, Toyota, or Ford. In the past you've lost a little of that value more quickly because of steeper depreciation rates for Hyundais and Kias, but the resale values for Hyundai and Kia have improved significantly in the last couple of years — in part because they've finally realized that looks do matter, but most likely because they've been relentlessly improving value.

I ended up getting a Hyundai because of how significant the savings were for this particular car : ).

On AZ HB 2281 (restricting ethnic studies classes), and discrimination

A friend asked me what I thought about AZ HB 2281, which "bans" ethnic studies. Following is my response! (She told me that if it was too personal that I didn't have to respond, BTW.)

-----

Oh, I don't think that politics is ever too personal. It's our future that we're discussing! Politics engenders policy, which has an enormous influence over our future! So, no worries! I'm always up for discussing politics : D.

I have to admit that I'm not overly familiar with AZ HB 2281. I looked it up, along with some of the commentary. I had to say that I found it pretty amusing — the commentary on both sides was so reactionary as to be bordering on absurd. From my brief exposure to the topic, I'd say that both sides are wrong, and that's one of the largest problems with politics today. Both sides are racing to the opposite ends of arguments so that achieving middle ground is impossible. On the one hand you have minority groups claiming that the program was intended to prepare students for college with college level texts, so the law is an obstacle to preparing minorities for college. Haha! Right, because the best way to prepare minorities for college is to read college level left-wing ideology. Haha! On the other side, you have people claiming that minorities are trying to set up the equivalent of a madrasah. Such polarizing rhetoric makes rational discussion impossible.

Ethnic studies classes make a lot of sense. EVERY historical perspective is biased. The history told in American schools will be predominately (if not almost exclusively) white European centric. That's just a fact of life. It makes sense that minorities would want classes that tell history from their own perspective. Where the classes went wrong was allowing teachers with an axe to grind (and an agenda to push), who would hijack the curriculum and turn it into an equally unfair retelling. The purpose should be to provide balance, not to espouse damaging views.

Does it help any of those students to believe that "Republicans hate Latinos?" NO! That belief is far more damaging to them than it will be to any white, racist Republican. Latinos who harbor this belief will mistakenly exclude themselves from a portion of society, and thereby exclude themselves from "Republican" associations, careers, opportunities, and successes that they would already have. The vast majority of Republicans do not hate Latinos. Do some? Sure! But, so do lots of Democrats! Heck, there are even Latinos who act in racist ways towards other Latinos! Harboring ill will towards Republicans will injure Latinos far more than it will ever hurt anyone else. It's similar to the segregation that African Americans impose on themselves by despising "white" (which is really just American) culture, and trying to carve out their own distinct culture. By ostracizing African Americans who act "too white", African Americans self-segregate — nullifying much of the equality work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Their peer pressure imposes an environment where success is looked down on, discouraged, and even punished. How does that help them? It doesn't. Having and preserving a distinct culture can be a wonderful thing, as long as it's not done with the purposes of denigrating another culture, of setting yourselves apart, and of holding your own selves back. Every culture can have traditions that do us a disservice. We can and should integrate with the society around us without abandoning who we are and our own cultural uniqueness.

So, does that make the law right? Haha! NO! It's impossible to legislate correct behavior. Two wrongs do not make a right. No amount of laws will create a "good", and especially not a law abiding people. You can write BILLIONS of pages of laws, and you're still going to have improper behavior. Creating more laws accomplishes the opposite. It makes it harder to actually be in compliance with the law. (Do any of us know all of the laws, so that we can actually be law abiding? Yeah, didn't think so.) It decreases respect for the rule of law and engenders resentment. (Anyone else think that ridiculous, stupid laws get passed way too often?) If you can view the law as a type of sword or other type of suffering (I find excessive laws insufferable), I think that Alma 31:5 applies well. The proper course of action is not to inflict more laws, it's to teach people (the instructors of the ethnic studies class in this instance) how their behavior is harmful to themselves and others. If you don't improve peoples' understanding, then they'll just find a new way to make the same mistake. We should be engaging in dialogue, not legislating one another.

Fortunately, it looks like the law doesn't have much teeth. It won't actually ban ethnic studies. And, it's almost impossible to enforce. Again, that just means that another stupid law was passed that does a disservice to the respect for the rule of law, and the justice system. It's more of a threat to clean up their act (or else) than anything else.

As far as what the Libertarian philosophy would be, Libertarians are VERY PRO immigration. However, they also believe that programs like affirmative action (see Libertarian platform: 2.0 "Economic Liberty", 2.1 "Property and Contract", and 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination"), while well meaning, only prolong the problems and divisions. The solution is to just treat everyone as equal under the law, and leave it at that. Don't give preference to underprivileged groups, as this just makes them more dependent (and therefore less free) on government. If they figure out how to induce the market to equalize their situation (for instance, if handicapped people and all of their friends give preference to facilities that are handicap accessible, and boycott those that aren't — rather than getting the ADA passed), then they're empowered. When people believe that they're reliant on the government to establish equality, then they've already given up some of their liberties.

Bringin' back the green (CTR ring)

Well, I didn't intend to include arts and crafts when I started this blog, but I couldn't help myself ; D. 

In tribute to this:

I took this:

And created this! (Well, not the crayons. I just added the green tinting of the ring to the lower left ; )

Here's the "How to" that I used for reference.

I learned that cheap crayons don't work as well as Crayola crayons. When the wax of cheap crayons cools, it's sort of porous, instead of being smooth.

Since the face of my ring is smooth (well, other than the recessed area for the wax) instead of being raised like a normal CTR ring, I found it easier to just rub it clean with a paper towel once the wax had cooled; rather than keeping it warm so that I could detail it with the paper towel or q-tip.

I tried a darker green that's closer to the CTR ring green first, but it ended up being too dark so I re-did it with the lighter "yellow-green". It's a little light, so I may end up trying mixing colors next time if I get motivated enough to try again.

Yeah, sort of silly, but I've always wanted my CTR ring to be green, and yet at the same time preferred this ring design. Pretty cool, huh?

On foreign policy and intervention (blow back)

[A response to a video online]

If America didn't have nuclear weapons, but China did, would you find it acceptable that China continued to obstruct our ability to obtain nuclear weapons? China spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year spying on us, and trying to influence our political system. Do you resent that, and find it inappropriate? That's what America is doing in the Middle East, and really most of the world.

The position of Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul) is that the biggest reason that these groups hate us is because we don't represent liberty and freedom to them. We represent meddling, intrusive, empire-building imperialists. We are invaders to them, trying to IMPOSE a political system on them. Would you stand idly by while another nation imposed anything on us?

Governor Johnson and Representative Paul believe, and I agree, that if we treat these groups like equals, and with respect and dignity, that they will no longer be a threat. They'll spend their money, time, and resources on more constructive things. If we trade with them freely, then democracy will naturally take root and become a part of their culture. On the other hand, if we invade their lands, set up bases, and bomb them, then they'll naturally hate us and our political and economic systems. They'll resist them. Wouldn't you?

Governor Johnson and Representative Paul don't see a need to research these relatively obscure topics, because their political worldview and treatment of the other nations and peoples of the world would eliminate problems like these. Muslims would stop sending money to America to destroy and kill Americans, if America stopped sending money and troops to the Middle East to occupy and destroy them. It's the concept of "blow back" that Representative Paul has pointed out on so many occasions. It's real (the CIA acknowledges it), and yet, somehow, we believe that our actions will not have natural consequences.

Our problem is that we've grown arrogant as a nation. We believe that it's our right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be. We believe that we're right, so we have the right to make unilateral decisions. That's not true. The rest of the world has every right to their political systems and cultures, regardless of how backward they may seem to us. Once we figure that out and treat them like equals, then they'll stop trying to kill us.

For all of our supposed "Christian values", we as a nation tend to forget the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we treat them like undeserving inferiors, then they'll prove us tragically wrong. If we treat them like friends, then they'll be friends.

The ills of government services — less care for one another

Gary Johnson has promised to not raise taxes for ANYONE, and yet to balance the budget. I, too, feel that the government has grown too much, and has taken on too many unconstitutional responsibilities that could be more efficiently, and less expensively be provided by non-governmental groups, such as non-profits (or even for profits).

Americans have proved to be the most generous people in the world, but as government takes on additional services and responsibilities, the response has changed from "What can I do to help?" to "Why should I help. That's the government's responsibility." That, in my mind, is as equally bad as a person feeling that the government should take care of him or her, instead of that person taking care of himself or herself.

The ever expanding government affects our feelings of responsibilities for one another. In many ways, this is more destructive to our society and our ability to function as a nation. We OUGHT to feel and take responsibility for one another. However, the government should NOT FORCE us to take care of one another by forcibly taking our resources and wasting a large portion of it doing what we could do more efficiently and less expensively for one another. We're no longer a society that knows and cares for our neighbors, and I would argue that government trying to take that responsibility away from us has played a key part in that.

When we voluntarily, of our own free will and choice, take care of one another, our nation will be far stronger than it could ever be if government is taxing us, wasting money, and providing pale imitations of the same acts of goodness and service.

Some thoughts on immigration

Following is an email response to a woman who expressed her belief that Gary Johnson's open immigration policy runs counter to the libertarian policy:

I also offer for your consideration the explanation of the Libertarian Party of their immigration position calling for open borders with the exception of security risks. The enumerated policy in the platform of the Libertarian Party is number 3.4.

The two reasons that people do not welcome immigrants is that they feel that immigrants steal jobs and "steal" government services (like education, and healthcare). It is my understanding that Libertarians believe that the actual roots of the immigration problems are the existence of the minimum wage and the existence of unconstitutional government services. Libertarians would remove the minimum wage which would mean that immigrants would be taking jobs that Americans don't want to take, and would result in the American economy actually being more competitive as the result of cheap labor. Libertarians would also get rid of those unconstitutional government services so that there would be no government services to "steal". That way immigrants would only be a boon to the economy, and wouldn't be taking anything from existing Americans.

Following is an excerpt from an email response sent to a friend who was encouraging me to vote for a candidate best known for developing one of the harshest (perhaps the harshest) policy against illegal immigrants in the nation. The "Church" mentioned is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

I was wondering if you're aware of the Church's recent statements on immigration. The Church has taken a lot of flak over the past year for making a lot of statements pleading for a compassionate solution: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here's the Utah Compact. I signed it!

Last week I actually came up to Utah to volunteer for the Gary Johnson presidential campaign at least until April. Politically, I'm Libertarian-leaning (I don't agree with everything that Libertarians believe). I believe very strongly in free markets, and limited government. I also believe that the Libertarian platform is the best embodiment of Elder Oaks' CES Fireside on truth and tolerance (skip to 15:43 to hear him, although if you're LDS and single then you don't want to miss Sister Oaks' talk which precedes his!) from this past Sunday. Government is a very different body from a church. Churches enforce morals and standards. Government CANNOT impose morals and standards on people (or they just resent and rebel against it and the affront to their dignity), and MUST exercise tolerance for people's choices and give them free will to make those choices except when those choices injure others. I think that Mosiah 29:26-34 explains this concept extremely well. Mosiah was concerned because having a king relieved the people somewhat from the responsibility of making their own choices and governing themselves. The more freedom that people have, the more agency, growth, and self-responsibility is available to them. People today are unfortunately clamoring for a "king". A government to make decisions for them, and to relieve them of their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves. The Libertarian party restores people's responsibilities for themselves.

People dislike immigrants because they believe that immigrants steal jobs and steal services (in other words, that we have to pay for the educations and medical services that they receive). Libertarians believe that the solution to immigration is to eliminate government services (no public education, no public healthcare, no welfare, no unemployment checks, no social security), and to eliminate the minimum wage. Immigrants will therefore only be a boon to our economy and produce no drag — there won't be any services for them to "steal", and they'll only be taking jobs that Americans wouldn't take because the pay was too low, which will make things cheaper for us and help our economy to be more competitive. Immigrants will only stay if they find jobs. Otherwise, they'll naturally leave of their own accord to find better opportunities elsewhere. (See the Libertarian platform here.)

As a Spanish-speaking missionary serving in New Mexico and Texas, it was heart-breaking for me to watch families separated by immigration issues, or to live in squalor because they were illegal and lived in fear, unable to live openly and publicly. Many of the members of our wards worked for the border patrol. They simply asked us as missionaries to never tell them who was illegal, because it was their duty to extradite illegals. They harbored no ill will towards illegals. It was just their job to enforce the border. Many of the border patrol agents openly stated that if it were them and their own families on the other side of the border, that they would likewise do anything that they had to in order to try to bring their families to the United States and the better opportunities here — including crossing the border illegally. I believe that the Church is asking us to see things the same way. To know that it could just as easily be us and our loved ones trapped in Mexico, surrounded by corruption, violence, and murder caused by drug cartels. Those illegal immigrants are our brothers and sisters.

Where I stand

I'm starting this blog so that I can express, explore, and discuss my political views and philosophies.

I describe myself as Libertarian-leaning. I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, but with some key differences. The following explains how my views differ from those of the Libertarian Party.

I don't agree with the position that abortion is acceptable. The rights of a woman shouldn't override the right of her unborn child to live. She still maintains plenty of rights and choice in the absence of abortion. She has the choice to not become pregnant. And when she doesn't (as in the case of rape or incest), then abortion should be allowed. She doesn't lose the right to live (but with abortion, the child does). In the rare case of danger to the life of the mother, then abortion ought to be an option. And, the mother still retains the same choices any parent has once they have a child: to keep the child, or to give the child up for adoption. An unborn child's right to life does not severely impact the rights and choices of a mother any more than any other child's has an effect on a parent. However, abortion severely impacts (as in, does away with) the rights of the unborn child. Abortion, if it's not murder, is so like it that as a civilized society we ought to prohibit it (other than the aforementioned exceptions of rape, incest, and danger to the mother).

I also believe that foreign intervention is not only appropriate in some cases, but an obligation. For instance, when a nation is invaded, then we ought to be willing to assist that nation in restoring its sovereignty. And, I also believe that it was appropriate for the French to assist the American colonists in their revolt against the British. I think that it's a question of whether or not an action has been requested publicly in an internationally recognized forum (such as the U.N.) by the people of that nation, and whether or not it enhances or protects the sovereignty of the people of that nation. If we were invaded, we would expect international military aid. When we rebelled against the British, we expected assistance. However, we initiated the conflict, and the people as a majority were active in it. Obviously, all international actions would need to be passed publicly by Congress (not by the president since that's unconstitutional; and certainly no covert interference — for example choosing a nation's government or leaders infringes on the rights of its people, it cannot enhance nor protect them). The French did not remove our leaders, nor drive them out. We drove out our own king. The French merely aided us in expressing our own sovereignty by helping us to protect our right to do so. However, I don't believe that we should have any permanent foreign bases or forces.

Just as people have the right to abstain from religious activities and to protect their children from being exposed to those expressions (for example, school prayer and religious symbols in government buildings), I believe that people have the right to abstain from being exposed to expressions and depictions of violence, blatant sexuality, profanity, etc., and to protect their children from being exposed. In other words, religion is an idea and an expression. To the same degree that people have the right to be protected from religious expressions, people ought to have the right to not be exposed to ideas and expressions we find offensive and to protect our children from being exposed to those ideas and expressions. Government should not prohibit those ideas nor expressions, but also cannot support them (whether in the arts, or in the media). Individuals must recognize when their ideas and expressions are offensive and then not express them publicly. I have no idea how this would be facilitated, but it seems fair to me and more possible in an age of technology then it was prior. This view is very nascent, so it needs some serious refining, but basically, expressions should be prohibited and protected equally, whether they be religious, or otherwise.

As a practical matter, the federal government probably must recognize same sex civil unions if they provide any rights to any couples. So, either the federal government must cease to provide rights to couples, or it must provide them to all consenting adults. However, marriage ought to be given to the states, with no federal interference whatsoever.

Other than what's mentioned above, I believe that my political philosophies match those of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/platform ).

 The evolving version of this document can be found here.