NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7

NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7

Item specifics

Condition:
New with box: A brand-new, unused, and unworn item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as ... Read moreabout the condition
Brand: KEEN
Width: Wide Colour: NEW BLACK
Material: Canvas Size: US 10
MPN: 46988 Style: CASUAL
UPC: 7434501912914
January 10, 2018

NEW KEEN SIENNA MJ CANVAS WOMEN'S TRAVEL SHOES LOW CUT CASUAL TRAVEL WOMEN'S WIDE SIZE US 10 ed10d7

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.

New Mizuno 410969.734Q Wave Prophecy 7 Silver Aqua Women's Running Shoes 6 USNew Balance WFCIMX D Wide Black Grey Women Running Shoes Sneakers WFCIMXDWomens Air Max Zero QS - 863700 002 - Silver Grey White Trainers,Frye Brown Greene High Back Zip Shearling Boot Athletic 8,Nike Wmns Air VaporMax Flyknit 2 Women New White Grey Running Shoes 942843-105,B37528_adidas Shoes – Eqt Support Sk Pk W black/white/green_2018_Women_Mesh_Nuev,NIKE Air Max Thea Print Silver Light Gray Glacier 7.5 616723-101 RARE! HTF!,Man/Woman Apex Women's Regina Diverse new design a variety of Great choice,Mr/Ms Mephisto Women's Kadia Sneaker Customer first The latest technology Excellent workmanshipASICS T680N.6720 Womens Gel-Fujiattack 5 Trail Runner- Choose SZ/Color.Nike Flex Contact RunningWomens Style : 908995 Black/White Womens Size 10,Auth Rihanna Puma Fenty Suede Creepers Sneakers Trainers Green Shoes Size 7 NWB,Adidas Originals Swift Run - Women's CG4141 Brown/White/White Womens Size 8,adidas Originals Men's Crazyflight X Mid Volleyball Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,HOGAN INTERACTIVE $425 pink suede nylon sneakers women’s 9.5,Saucony S19033-1 Womens Showdown 4 Track Shoe- Choose SZ/Color.,Wmns Air Max 98 Gundam White/University Red-Obsidian AH6799-100 Sz 5,NEW Converse Hello Kitty One Star Low 162939C pink suede women's shoe sneaker,Nike Air Max 2016 Womens Size 8 New 806772-040 Black Blue Flyknit,Bona Fide Asics Gel Kayano 24 Womens Fit Running Shoes (B) (0690),Hoka One One Tor Speed 2 Neon Pink Astral Running Shoes,Women Skechers EZ Flex 3.0 Swift Breeze Slip on Sneakers shoe 23478 Natural NewWomen's Nike Air Max Plus LX "Particle Rose" Athletic Fashion Casual AH6788 600,Ash Women's Attack Fashion Sneaker - Choose SZ/Color,Finn Comfort Women's Jamaica SoftKoio black leather sneakers: Great Condition Women's Size 7,Nike Air Force 1 Upstep Premium LX Womens AA3964-001 Dark Stucco Shoes Size 10Nike Blazer Mid Rebel Women's Shoe - Guava Ice/Black/Crimson Tint/Summit White,Nike Air Force 1 Upstep Metallic Anaconda Womens 917590-900 Blur Shoes Size 8.5,PUMA Thunder Desert Women's Natural Vachetta 36802401

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

Mizuno Wave Sky 2 [J1GD181246] Women Running Shoes Wide Black/Grey-Purple,

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.