Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7

Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7

Item specifics

Condition:
New with box: A brand-new, unused, and un item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as ... Read moreabout the condition
Brand: Clarks
Width: Medium (D, M) Style: Boots
Color: Gray US Shoe Size (Men's): See Drop Down
Material: Suede
January 10, 2018

Clarks Navy Original Brayer Sport Moccasin Navy Clarks Marine Suede Mens Shoes 63307 1704-97 e859f7

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.

Adidas Century Low AdiColor W3 Limited Men SZ 11 - 14,NIKE Men's Shoes 581681 Black 27cmMr/Ms adidas Men's Tubular Instinct Casual Shoe Comfortable feeling Primary quality Complete specifications,Man's/Woman's Men's Clarks Shoes - Redworth Plan Best-selling worldwide First batch of customers Exquisite processing,Polo Ralph Lauren Mens Southwest Style Canvas Slip-On Sneakers Thompson,CLARKS ORIGINAL Chelsea désert marron ou noir cuir suédé / vrai 11,Men's Casual Trainers Running Shoes Sneakers Outdoor Athletic Leather Shoes Size,NEW BALANCE Sneakers 996 kn1590 Multi-Color US 9.5 27.5 cm,Cole Haan & Todd Snyder Mens Willet Plain Oxford ShoesPUMA Men's PU102941001 Ultrasize Analog Display Left-Handed Black/White...,Cole Haan Men's Santa Barbara II Penny Loafer, Dark Roast 13 Medium US,DIADORA MEN'S SHOES SUEDE TRAINERS SNEAKERS NEW GAME LOW S ORANGENE 2A0,Men's embroidery floral round toe loafer casual shoes nightclub party shoes New,Men Kenneth Cole Shoes Design 10917 Fashion Black Size 9Kenneth Cole New York Men's 'Sport' Quartz Stainless Steel Dress Watch,...,Legendary Whitetails Men's Grass Roots Casual Boot,J.Crew The 1990 MacAlister Men's Boot in Oiled Leather Size 13 $158,NEW Lacoste LT Dual Elite 7-34SPM0008237 Mens Shoes Trainers Sneakers SALEMens metal decor shoes casual slip on loafer dress formal pointed toe KoreanPuma Men's Roma AO Iridescent Fashion Sneakers,Demonia shoes V-Creeper-571 goth gothic punk black vegi creepers men's 4-14,Fashion Men's Retro Carved Brogue Leather Shoes Formal Fringe Groom Dress Shoes,Florsheim Men's Tuscany Venetian Black Smooth Leather Moc Toe ShoesConverse X Parra 'PAINT THE TOWN (RED)' Chuck Taylor High RARE (US11)New max airKENNETH COLE ITALY BROWN LEATHER SLIP ON LOAFER WEEKEND POWER SHOES 11 M,Merrell Mens Sandals All Out Blaze Sieve Convert Black J32847,Gentlemen/Ladies Invicta Womens Angel Two-Tone Watch elegant special promotion Characteristics,Frye James Kiltie Wingtip Loafers Distressed Tan Leather Size 7 Retails $218,Cole Haan Men's Pinch Penny Moc Toe Slip On Casual Loafer Shoes Burgundy 8 NEW,Caterpillar Men's Streamline Comp Toe Work Shoe medium,

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

Mens Casual Business Driving Moccasins Slip On Loafers Real Leather Shoes Sz,

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.