Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4

Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4

Item specifics

: An item that has been or previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and ... Read moreabout the condition
Brand: GUESS
Width: Medium (D, M) Style: Desert Boots
Color: Brown US Shoe Size (Men's): 10.5
UPC: Does not apply
January 10, 2018

Guess Boots Brown Desert Chukka Ankle Boots Guess Mens Size 10.5 M ,Worn once 9a62d4

Back to Blog


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.

Man's/Woman's Sean John Shoes 10.5 Brown Reasonable price Medium cost Fashion dynamicKENNETH COLE UNLISTED BLIND TURN MENS 12M SIDE ZIP BOOTS,Men's Military Tactical Boots Waterproof Hiking Combat Boots Army Boots Hot,Polo Ralph Lauren Men's Barrott Red Leather Casual Ankle Boots Size 10.5,Men's JustinJB 1100 11 Inch Round toe Boots Color .brown,Men/Women Larry Mahan Lizard boots 12 preowned economic high quality Great choice,Rockport Mens M7100 Boot Ankle Boots Size 10.5 (32460),John Blair Black Leather Suede Ankle Boots Lightweight Men's Size 12M,Leather Round Toe Ankle Boot Men's Formal Dress Motor Slip On Boot Casual Shoes,American Eagle Chukka man brown leather boots BRAND NEWUnder Armour 1268951-001 Men's Stellar Tactical 11.5US 10.5EU Black Boots,Dakota 8'' Mammoth Men's Dark Brown Composite Toe Work Boot 8M,Weatherproof Mens Boots Leather Insulation Size 10,Scarpa Inverno mountaineering winter boots liner only 10 right inner,Kodiak Journey Brown Hiker Men's Boot 10.5MSnow boots Size 38~50 Warmest Boots Genuine Leather Men Winter Shoes 2017 New,Vegace 9005 Mens Black Leather Oil Slip Resistant Occupational Work Hiking Boots,VTG MENS DURANGO SQUARE TOE COWBOY LEATHER BROWN BOOTS SIZE 10.5 M,POLO Ralph Lauren Wallingford Suede Chukka Sz 13 D Men Ankle Boots,Rocky 2149 Fort Hood Waterproof Military Duty Side Zip Combat Boots SZ 12M,Rockport Mens Brown Hiking Boots Size 11.5 (E, W) (419013),JOHNSTON & MURPHY BROWN DESERT BOOTS GUM SOLE MEN SIZE 13 MHigh Sierra QUEBEC Dark Brown Hiking/Walking Boots - Size US 8.5/Leather,Insulated Rubber Boots Suede Leather Upper Size 8 by Totes,ROBERT WAYNE CONROY BROWN MAN MADE MATERIAL BOOTS SIZE 10 DMENS UNBRANDED COWBOY LEATHER BURGUNDY BOOTS SIZE 10 D,Mens DOC DR. MARTENS Mesh Rigal Grey Leather 8 Eyelet Eye Boots Calf Boot 9 10,Lake Trail Brown Rubber Chest Waders US 8-8.5 WathoseClarks Originals Wallabees Tan Suede Crepe Sole Oxfords Chukka Boots Men's 11.5,Under Armour Tabor Ridge Gore-Tex Hiking Boots Size 14,

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



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


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


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:


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.