Nike Lunar Hyperquickness Shoes TB 652775-606 Red Basketball Shoes Hyperquickness Men's 14 NCAA new 0aacad

Nike Lunar Hyperquickness Shoes TB 652775-606 Red Basketball Shoes Hyperquickness Men's 14 NCAA new 0aacad
January 10, 2018

Nike Lunar Hyperquickness Shoes TB 652775-606 Red Basketball Shoes Hyperquickness Men's 14 NCAA new 0aacad

Back to Blog

Highlights

Print Post
  • A new Minnesota law represents the bi-partisan possibilities of enacting legislation based on the consensus that marriage is a vital tool for reducing poverty. Tweet This
  • Minnesota recently enacted a 12-month “honeymoon” period for newly-married couples receiving assistance through the state's TANF. Tweet This

Many discussions about safety-net programs tend to focus on financial cliffs—how the impact of getting a raise or working additional hours may make participants ineligible for the very benefits they need to move into economic stability. Marriage is rarely part of this discussion, even though numerous studies show marriage is an important tool for moving families out of poverty.1 That marriage is often absent from these discussions is especially ironic, since the promotion of family stability—by encouraging marriage and discouraging nonmarital births—was among the chief policy rationales for welfare reform in 1996.

After reviewing research stressing the importance of eliminating marriage penalties, we developed and successfully advocated for legislation that would create a “honeymoon” period for newly-married couples receiving assistance through Minnesota’s version of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The legislation (HF 1453/SF 1165) received strong bipartisan support and was enacted by a Republican Legislature and Democratic Governor Mark Dayton in 2017. In our view, it represents the bi-partisan possibilities of enacting legislation based on the consensus that marriage is a vital tool for reducing poverty and fostering child well-being.

Crafting a Policy

Minnesota’s version of TANF is the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), which provides work support and cash assistance for children and their parents, who are often low wage workers between jobs. There has been no increase in the amount of the cash benefit to participants in over 30 years. Both of our organizations were involved in advocating for an increase.

As we talked with people of faith across our state, especially religious leaders, we kept hearing about couples who wanted to be married but couldn’t afford to make this decision because adding another adult to the family’s income would put them over the poverty threshold used to determine eligibility.2 The concerns were often strongest for couples expecting a baby who wished to be married before birth of their child. Unfortunately, marriage would result in a loss of benefits at the exact time the new mother would be unable to work. We sought to address this marriage disincentive.

Framing the Legislation

In our experience, all elected officials want to help families and individuals in poverty. They desire all our citizens to be economically stable and prosperous, but they often have different ideas about how to make that happen. Our goal was to frame our bill in a way that showed a commitment to helping children live in stable, secure homes that lawmakers from both parties could champion.

To that end, we drafted a bill to create an 18-month window after marriage in which a new spouse’s income would not count when determining eligibility—a “honeymoon” period. This income disregard was modeled on an existing statute that addressed child support for children on MFIP. Due to constitutional concerns related to marriage incentive programs, we consciously chose to structure the bill in a way that would allow couples to choose to marry rather than reward those who married.

Making the Pitch

In seeking bill sponsors (and later other supporters), we spoke about the benefits of marriage to children and the challenges to couples that wanted to marry but knew the very real financial impact this would have on their families. We shared that the federal TANF Program, which is used to fund MFIP, specifically lists two marriage-related goals: to promote marriage and to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.

We provided data from a joint American Enterprise Institute/Los Angeles Times study3 in which people in poverty were asked: “How often do you think unmarried adults chose not to get married to avoid losing welfare benefits?” Twenty-four percent of participants answered, “almost always,” and an additional 23% answered, “often.”

We also gave legislators highlighted copies of a 2009 study of the federal TANF program that showed participation in the TANF program had a negative effect on the probability of marriage, an effect that disappeared once participants moved off the program.4

In building strong bipartisan support for the legislation, we addressed some concerns along the way. For example, we made it clear that we were not judging single parents but instead creating a viable option for couples who wanted to be married. We also clarified that nothing in the bill would trap a parent in a relationship that was dangerous for the parent or children.

Our House author identified a concern we hadn’t anticipated—should the state allow continued participation in the MFIP program if a participant marries a middle or upper-class individual? We addressed this by amending the bill to include a cap on the income disregard, set at 275% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, the standard used to determine whether pregnant women and children are eligible for Medicaid.

In both chambers, the bill passed unanimously and was included in an omnibus bill signed by our Governor. Ultimately, the bill had to be amended to provide an income disregard for 12 months instead of the original 18. This change was unfortunate given that, ideally, this honeymoon period would last two or three years. Despite this amendment, the new law will likely make a significant impact by removing an obstacle to marriage for low-income households in our state.

NIKE | Court Force Hi | Pilgrim Medium Brown | 10.5Nike Air Zoom Huarache 2K4 MPLS Wolf Grey Blue Size 10.5 Kobe Bryant 308475-002,Nike Zoom Men's Shoes Hyperquickness University Red & Black/Silver Various Sizes,Nike Dunk High, 317982-030, Men's Basketball Shoes, Old Royal Blue, Size 13,Nike lunar Magista II flyknit black sz 11,NIKE LEBRON 9 LOW "SUMMIT LAKE HORNETS" TURQUOISE BLUE [510811-400] Sz:10.5,NEW Nike SB Zoom Dunk Low Pro Boca Junior JR Royal Blue 854866-471 Sz 10,*ADIDAS - SPAIN ANTHEM TRACK TOP LS / BLACK, DARK SHALE & DARK ONIX = SIZE*,Nike Mercurial Victory V FG Mens Soccer Cleats Squadron Blue 651632-440 Size 11,03 Nike Air Jordan XI 11.5Retro Low WHITE CEMENT GREY COBALT BLUE ZEN 306008-142,Nike Air Jordan 4 Military Blue 2006 Sz 8.5Air Jordan 2012 LIMITED EDITION Miami Heat COLORWAY SZ 10,Nike Roshe Two Flyknit V2 Running Shoes Beige Black 918263-200 Men's NEW,Nike Air Max Premiere Run Black Metallic Silver Dark Grey White 789575-001Nike Air Jordan Retro IV 2017 Pure Money Silver Men's Basketball Shoes Size 10,NIKE AIR PENNY IV MEN'S BASKETBALL SHOES 864018-001 BLACK/DARK NEON ROYAL,NIKE Mens Tanjun SE Mens Running Shoes 844887 001 SIZE 10.5 NEWNike Classic Cortez Leather White / Black 749571-100,Brand New Nike Air Jordan SC 2 Gray, Blue, And White Size 11 ShoesNIKE ZOOM REV BHM QS SZ: MNS 7.5 (AA1009 001) RETAIL: $110.00,NEW MENS NIKE JORDAN ULTRA.FLY 2 sz 13 BLACK White Red Basketball Shoes SneakersNew Nike LT 2.1 Shark Football Cleats 349037-013 Shoes Men,NikeLab Run Free Shoes Inneva WovenMotion Mens Size 5.5 Running Black 894989 002,RARE SAMPLE Mens 9 NIKE SB P.ROD Rodriguez Blue Flowers Shoes 705194-910,Nike Mercurial Mens Shoes Vintage look Size 8.5 2012,Nike NEW Mens Air Zoom Spiridon '16 Running Shoes 926955-400 Size 10.5 $160,SIZE 9 MEN'S NIKE POCKETNIFE DM BROWN GREY ORANGE PURPLE SOFT COMFORT CASUAL,Preowned Foamposite Pro Prm 616750-003 Mens Pr Pltnm/Crimson Size 8.5,Nike Duel Racer Men's Casual Shoes Dark Mushroom Crimson 918228 202 size 11.5,NIKE ROSHERUN MENS RUNNING SHOES - MENS SIZE 9

Join the IFS Mailing List

Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.

Institute for Family Studies

© 2018 Institute for Family Studies

Nike Magista Onda IC 651541-040 Grey/Turquoise Indoor Soccer Shoes Size 11.5,

Contact

Interested in learning more about the work of the Institute for Family Studies? Please feel free to contact us by using your preferred method detailed below.
 

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902
 


610.733.4804

Media Inquiries

We encourage members of the media interested in learning more about the people and projects behind the work of the Institute for Family Studies to get started by perusing our "Media Kit" materials.

Media Kit

Support

Thanks for your interest in supporting the work of The Institute for Family Studies. Please mail support checks to the address below:

The Institute for Family Studies
P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902

If you would like to donate online, please click the button below to be taken to our donation form:

Donate

You can also support us on Patreon via the button below:

IFS on Patreon

The Institute for Family Studies is a 501(c)3 organization. Your donation will be tax-deductible.