|Condition:|| : |
An item that has been or previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections.See all condition definitions- opens in a new window or tab
|Seller Notes:||“VERY NICE PREOWNED CONDITION, SEE PHOTOS FOR DETAILS”|
|Modified Item:||No||US Shoe Size (Men's):||9|
|Country/Region of Manufacture:||Brazil||Upper Material:||Leather|
|Width:||W||Brand:||Johnston & Murphy|
|Pattern:||Solid||UPC:||Does not apply|
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.Ben Sherman Men's Gabe Oxford Men's Casual - Dress Shoes US 10,SPERRY TOPSIDER Men's Gray Boat Shoes Size 11 M,SANUK MENS NATURAL ROUNDER HOBO SIDEWALK SURFERMan/Woman SlipGrips Slip-Resistant Work Hiker flagship store Latest styles Global salesClarks 62187 Size 10 M Brown Leather Side Stretch Casual Loafers Mens ShoesCole Haan Country mens black slip on moc loafers size 8M,Men's Milano Moda Cream/Beige Snake Print Faux Leather Dress Shoes Sz 8.5-13Dr. Brinkmann 220215 Mules Men Scuffs & Mules slippers cork footbed felt - NEW,Rockport Prowalker Oxfords Men’s Beige Leather Comfort Walking Shoes Size 10.5 M,Dr. Scholl's Men's Vertex Double Strap Casual Shoe Color Black Size 7.5Nunn Bush Mens Size 10 Brown Leather Slip On Loafer Shoes 84080-205GOLDEN GIRLS HI TOP FASHION SNEAKERS SIZE 11 M CLEAN GREAT CONDITIONSPERRY TOP-SIDER men's casual boat shoes blue leather SIZE 10.5 MVery Nice MASON SHOE Leather Upper SHOES sz 10 1/2 D,Leisure Mens Driving Slip On Mules Loafers Comfy Vogue Shoes Gommino Moccasins,Gentleman/Lady PUMA Funist Slider, Black 8 Elegant appearance Various types and styles Extreme speed logistics,Propet Travelfit Strap Walking Shoes, Men's Size 9.5, BlackAdidas Gazelle Sz US 13 M Burgundy Suede Sneakers Mens Shoes $85.00,Men's Kustom One Lo Black Leather Casual Shoes, Size 9 - 13. NIB, RRP $129.99.,Mens Flats Slip On Loafers Breathable Chinese Retro Linen Casual Ethnic ShoesMens Flat Casual Business Breath Soft Bottom Shoes Outdoor Walk Sneaker Box03,COLE HAAN Resort Red Leather Loafer Slip on Shoes 9.5,Tommy Hilfiger Men's Redd 4 Casual Shoe,Amblers FS663 Safety Mens Unisex Composite Toe Cap Industrial Work Boots UK3-12,DOCKERS PRO STYLE ALL MOTION COMFORT PROPET SHOES MEN'S SIZE 11 XX(5E) M4078Globe GS Chukka Skate Shoes (8) Black / Antique,Saucony Mens Shadow 5000 Retro Stylish Low-Top Fashion Sneakers Shoes BHFO 9103New Cadillac Net 91697955B Hi-Top Boots Brown Cream Off White US Size 9.5 Shoes,Sperry Top-Sider Brown Boat Loafers Mens Brown Leather Slip On Shoes Size 8MSummer Men's Leather Beach Sandals Roman Closed Toe Holiday Outwear Shoes Vogue,
Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.
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.
P.O. Box 1502
Charlottesville, VA 22902
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.
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:
The Institute for Family Studies is a 501(c)3 organization. Your donation will be tax-deductible.