Summer Savings Strategies: 7 steps to take when paying off debt
Americans are expected to spend an average of $2,867 per household — or $226.6 billion in total — on a summer vacation this year, according to Allianz Partners. Here are some surefire ways to save money ahead of and during the summer.
Personal finance expert and co-host of The Ramsey Show, George Kamel, sits down with Allie Canal for a conversation about budgeting strategies, focusing spending through intentionality, and avoiding savings pitfalls.
Kamel is also the host of his own YouTube channel and the co-host of the Smart Money Happy Hour.
To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Wealth here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How many abomination-supporting Arizona congressmen will Elon pay to defeat?
Donald Trump and Republicans loved it when Elon Musk pumped what analysists say was at least $288 million into the 2024 election campaigns of Trump and others. I wonder if Arizona Republican U.S. Reps. David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Paul Gosar, Abe Hamadeh and Juan Ciscomani are worried that he might spend something close to that amount going after them and others in 2026. Because if Elon is a guy who still puts his money where his mouth is, he will. Musk got bamboozled into believing the Republicans he bankrolled actually wanted to cut federal spending and reduce the deficit. HA! Instead, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' will hand out trillions in tax cuts (to people like Elon) while raising the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the decade and leaving nearly 11 million more Americans without health insurance. The 215 House Republicans who voted to advance the bill thought a billionaire like Elon would love the idea that he'll be getting to keep even more of his billions. Instead, Elon came out on social media and said, 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He kept going, saying the bill would saddle Americans with 'crushingly unsustainable debt.' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Musk's criticism was 'very disappointing.' It must have really spooked him when Musk also said, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' Yes! The big bill passed the House with Republican support only. In our case, it was supported by all of Arizona's GOP congressmen. Although, Rep. David Schweikert actually said that, while he supported the bill, he was so tired he 'slept' through the vote. (Not sure which is worse. Supporting the bill or sleeping through a monumental vote.) Opinion: Biggs' coronation rally wasn't really about him One of only three Republicans who didn't support the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky, is encouraging Musk to spend money defeating the bill's supporters. He said, 'I just think he made one mistake — he said take them out in November. I would take them out in primaries if I were Elon Musk.' Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs need not worry. He is getting out of Dodge by running for governor. But his GOP cohorts in Congress — Schweikert, Crane, Gosar, Hamadeh and Ciscomani — are still there, still giving tax breaks to billionaires, raising the debt and tossing people off insurance rolls. They loved Musk when he was shoveling mounds of cash into Trump's campaign. How will they feel, I wonder, if he starts shoveling cash onto their political graves? Reach Montini at Like this column? Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Elon Musk's new 'kill the bill' target: Arizona congressmen | Opinion
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress can deal a blow to government union bosses
Congress can use the budget reconciliation bill to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees who, instead of doing their jobs, are doing business for their unions. Through a practice known as 'official time,' union agents can draw a government salary even when they are off lobbying Congress, or spending 100 percent of their time working for a labor union. In 2019, the year before President Joe Biden ordered the Office of Personnel Management to stop tracking and reporting official time, employees across the federal government were paid $135 million to do 2.6 million hours of union work while 'on the clock' at their government jobs. These are the last people who deserve taxpayer money. Despite being paid with tax dollars, these government union bosses are blatantly partisan. They're so used to being above the law that they see no reason to represent the views of most Americans. That's why their contributions to candidates favor Democrats 20 to 1. And of course, government employee unions have staged massive protests in Washington to combat the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy. Even though unions are third-party, nongovernmental organizations with strong political biases, federal officials are required by law to negotiate with them over their agencies' staffing policies. Public policy should be made by representatives elected by the American people. It is undemocratic for those policies to instead be made through forced 'negotiations' between elected officials and unelected union bosses. Union officials should never have been given control over the government workforce. So it's good that President Trump signed an executive order ending union bargaining at several federal agencies. If Congress won't ban federal unions altogether, it can deal a significant blow to these groups by taking away the massive taxpayer subsidies that help fund their operations. The Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), forces unions to pay back the official time they consume, plus the value of other perks they receive, such as free government office space. If union bosses want to set up shop in government buildings, and use government employees as union organizers and lobbyists, they should do it on their own dime. Reversing the flow of taxpayer money into union coffers is a revenue decision, making Ernst and Perry's language eligible for the budget reconciliation bill, which, unlike most legislation, can pass the Senate with just 51 votes. The language should be included in the reconciliation bill, but union bosses have allies in government, so its inclusion is in jeopardy. It suffered an early defeat after Rep. Perry introduced an amendment in the House Oversight Committee that would have placed his language in the budget. A majority of the committee's members joined with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who said that she opposed Perry's amendment because she believes that campaigning for candidates like herself is an appropriate activity for government workers. 'Making sure that you are going to get somebody who is going to serve in a seat that is going to make sure that you can be protected … as far as I'm concerned, that is agency business,' she explained. Crockett is wrong. Government employees should not be in the business of deciding who should serve in a congressional seat and campaigning to elect that person. House and Senate leaders should insist that the language in the Protecting Taxpayer Wallets Act be added to the budget reconciliation bill, so that the public no longer has to fund the political activity of union bosses. Jace White is the director of federal affairs at the National Right to Work Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dr. Oz on Medicaid cuts: People should ‘prove that they matter'
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz defended President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' over criticism that millions of people could lose health coverage, saying those who would face new work requirements should 'prove that they matter.' Oz made the comments during an interview Wednesday on Fox Business, arguing that when Medicaid was created in the 1960s lawmakers did not include work requirements because it 'never dawned on anybody that able-bodied people who work would be on Medicaid.' 'We're asking that able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or at least volunteer or take care of loved-one who needs help or go back to school,' he said. 'Do something that shows you have agency over your future.' If Americans are willing to do that, he added, they should be able to be enrolled or stay enrolled in Medicaid. 'But if you are not willing to do those things, we are going to ask you to do something else. Go on the exchange, or get a job and get onto regular commercial insurance. But we are not going to continue to pay for Medicaid for those audiences.' 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he added. 'It's a much more enjoyable experience if you go through life thinking you are in control of your destiny and you will get better insurance at the same time.' Close to 11 million people would lose health insurance coverage if the House Republican tax bill passes in the Senate, mainly due to cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, according to analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Trump's sprawling agenda bill calls for trillions of dollars' worth of tax cuts, with offsets from sweeping cuts to federal benefit programs, primarily Medicaid. The bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion, according to an analysis from health care policy nonprofit KFF. Most of those savings stem from new work requirements for adults trying to enroll in the public health insurance program and more frequent eligibility checks. The bill calls for states to impose work requirements for childless adults between the ages of 19 and 64, with some exceptions, to be eligible for Medicaid. Adults would be required to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month beginning in December 2026 to qualify for the public health insurance program. Many Trump allies in Congress have sought to downplay the impact of the Medicaid reforms, denying it will reduce access to the program. Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans have raised alarm over Medicaid cuts. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought recently told CNN's Dana Bash that concerns over the bill are 'ridiculous.' 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' he said. 'No one will lose coverage as a result of the bill.' Democrats have pushed hard against the proposed cuts, while GOP senators such as Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) have pushed for changes to the bill passed by the House last month. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
