New bill would provide extra support for Utah foster children
Utah Foster Care reports that there are around 2,700 children in the state's foster care system at any given time — and only about 1,300 families licensed to foster them. This means a dearth of advocates for a critically vulnerable population.
A new bill advanced byRep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, would allow the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to intervene on behalf of foster children. The Senate floor sponsor is Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross.
Fiefia called HB302, or 'Minors in State Custody Amendments,' a 'feel-good' bill. It would keep foster children from losing out on Medicaid and federal payouts by giving administrative authority over to the state government to help them stay up to date with those programs.
If enacted, HB302 would require Utah's Department of Health and Human Services to do the following:
Apply for Medicaid benefits on behalf minors in the custody of the HHS.
Apply for federal benefits on behalf of minors in custody, as appropriate.
Offer financial literacy training to a minor who received a federal benefit while in the custody of the department
If passed, HB302 would go into effect on May 7. The fiscal note on the bill says it would cost the state $1.4 million.
'I think the policy stands on its own. It's a strong policy that needs to happen,' said Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City. 'It's a budget-difficult year, but I think it's something we need to take care of.'
Thousands of children age out of foster care every year across the country. House of Providence, a Michigan organization that helps foster children, reports that as many as 20% of former foster children become instantly homeless when they leave foster care; only about 50% of fostered children enter gainful employment by age 24; and less than 3% end up earning a college degree before age 26.
Federal benefits for foster care children frequently include essentials like housing and health care, as well as programs that increase quality of life, like employment assistance, per the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In January 2025, the GAO reported that states do not always spend all the federal funding made available to foster care children. Millions are returned every year from states to the national Department of Health and Human Services, despite, as GAO says, 'young people still needing these services.'
As the Deseret News previously reported, Utah is in the middle of a historic shortage of foster families. Media reports indicated last year that Utah foster families receive $21 a day, but this doesn't cover the costs of food and child care, in addition to other essentials for young families.
'We are incredibly supportive of this policy,' testified David Litvack, a deputy director at Utah's Department of Health and Human Services, who spoke at the Senate committee hearing and worked with Fiefia on the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump Signs Ban on California EV Rules, Sparking Nationwide Reactions
President Trump has signed congressional resolutions overturning California's ability to mandate electric vehicle (EV) sales and establish its tailpipe and emissions standards via a federal waiver. Trump's resolutions immediately halt California's 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales-a plan adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C. In total, 17 other states representing 30% of the U.S. auto market have adopted some or all of California's stricter vehicle emissions standards. California also won't be able to enforce an increase in zero-emission heavy-duty truck sales and a low-nitrogen oxide regulation for heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicles/engines. "Today we're saving California, and we're saving our entire country from a disaster," Trump said, according to The Hill. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, announced last month that his state would go to court to protect its federal waiver allowing its own clean air rules, claiming it exists outside of the Congressional Review Act's scope, which repealed the waiver. Now, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington are among the states joining California's legal battle. In March, the Government Accountability Office said California's waivers can't be repealed under the Congressional Review Act, and the Senate parliamentarian had advised not moving forward with the act, making the Senate's decision to go against the parliamentarian extremely rare. Former President Biden's waiver allowed 80% of the new vehicles that California sells to be all-electric by 2035, with the rest being advanced plug-in hybrids. The mandate's ramp-up period included 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state being zero-emission, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered the Air Resources Board to craft another mandate for cars and trucks to either support its existing mandates or replace them in the case of a court loss. Newsom also instructed the board to create a public list of automakers and truck manufacturers following California's emissions rules and companies acting early to convert fleets to zero-emission trucks, "regardless of the status of those regulations under federal law," Cal Matters reports. While Trump's signings generated backlash, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis, and other automakers, supported the president's decision, describing California's previous mandate as unachievable and something that would raise car prices. EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said, "This is nothing more than California throwing a temper tantrum because the American people don't want the state's terrible policies," according to Reuters. More than a quarter of California's new car sales are EVs, with New Jersey and New York following at 15% and 12%, respectively, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports. Meeting California's EV mandates would've been challenging for automakers. Still, Congress's decision to block the state from setting its emissions standards sets off a domino effect that could significantly slow EV development throughout the country. Michael Gerrard, the founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said: "The chief winners of this move are the oil industry and China. Electric vehicles are the main threat to the demand for oil, and this move further cements China as the global leader in producing electric vehicles," according to NBC. A decrease in EV adoption resulting from Congress's repeal could also pose health risks, as California stated its EV sales mandate would prevent around 1,300 cardiopulmonary deaths between 2026 and 2040. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
2 hours ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
