Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72

Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72

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: Xelero
US Shoe Size (Women's): All Style: Walking Shoes
January 10, 2018

Xelero Genesis - Women's Motion Control Shoe - Sizes All Colors - All Sizes - a73a72

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.

Men/Women Saucony Freedom ISO Women's Pink/Purple/Teal 103558 Adequate supply and timely delivery Win the praise of customers Outstanding style,Nike Air Max Plus TN SE Womens AQ9979-100 Bleached Aqua Running Shoes Size 7,Authentic PRADA women`s high top fashion leather sneakers | Size 36.5 (24 cm),Nike Air VaporMax Flyknit Moc 2 iD Women's Running Shoe Peach/White Size 9,NIKE Womens Air Force 1 Hi Se 860544-301 VINTAGE GREEN/VINTAGE GREEN Size 10,BC0251 Adidas Originals x Parley Women's Ultraboost 4.0 in Blue Spirit/Carbon,New Nike Shoes Air Max 2017 Persian Concord Womens US Size 9,New Balance Women's Shoes U410 QG Size 5.5 usNIKE Wmns Nike Air Zoom Pegasus 33 831356-001 BLACK Womens SZ 5adidas Originals Arkyn Runner Women's Dark Blue/White/Gum DB1980,Women’s Nike Air Vapormax Flyknit 2 Dark Grey Brand New Sz8.5wNike Women's Air Max 97 OG QS Gold Bullet Varsity Red 885691 700 Size 8,Trotters Women's Josie Mary Jane Dark Blue Lizard Suede Patent/Synthetic Nubuck,Adidas Tubular X 2.0 W Womens BY9749 CBLACK,CBLACK,OWHITE Womens Size 8,Asics GEL-Nimbus 20 [T850N-401] Women Running Shoes Azure/White,Laredo Women's Power Pack 11" 5752 Copper Kettle,Mephisto Women's Helen Sandal White Patent Leather,NEW RELEASE Asics Gel Netburner Professional FF Womens Netball Shoes (B) (9093),Brooks 1202081B Womens Ravenna 7 Sneaker 6 B- Choose SZ/Color.,WMNS NIKE FREE TR 8 NAVY / WHITE TRAINING SHOES WOMEN'S SELECT YOUR SIZE,Nike Air Max 90 Denim Pack Womens 881105-401 Binary Blue Running Shoes Size 7.5,Saucony Women's Ride 10 Running Shoe Fog/Red 8 B(M) USadidas Pure Boost X All Terrain Legend Ink/Red Night/Tactile Yellow BY2690,ADIDAS Falcon Black Pink B28126 Unisex Shoes Sneakers US W 5-11,Nike W Lunarepic Low Flyknit 2 [863780-001] Women Running Shoes Black/White,WMNS PUMA PLATFORM TRACE STRAP CASUAL SHOES WOMEN'S SELECT YOUR SIZENEW - NIKE Women's 'AIR MAX 2017' 849560-007 Gray RUNNING SHOES - 5.5 / 36Keen Women's Terradora Hiking Shoe Neutral Gray/Gargoyle,Women's Nike Air Max 95 QS GOLD BULLET METALLIC WHITE 814914-700 sz 8.5WMNS NIKE AIR MAX 2016 ID PURPLE-RED-BLUE SZ 8.5 [839369-992],

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 Air Max 95 LX AA1103-001 Black Women Size US 7 NEW 100% Authentic,

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.