Man/Woman Tommy SZ/Color. Hilfiger Womens Take- Pick SZ/Color. Tommy Many styles Selected materials negotiation 6d5a6b

Man/Woman Tommy SZ/Color. Hilfiger Womens Take- Pick SZ/Color. Tommy Many styles Selected materials negotiation 6d5a6b

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
UPC: 0191158130371
Style: Causal Brand: Tommy Hilfiger
US Shoe Size (Women's): Multiple Variations Model: TWTAKE
Size Type: Regular MPN: TWTAKE
Material Type: synthetic
January 10, 2018

Man/Woman Tommy SZ/Color. Hilfiger Womens Take- Pick SZ/Color. Tommy Many styles Selected materials negotiation 6d5a6b

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.

Saucony Women's Miles Sneaker - Choose SZ/ColorWomen's adidas PureBOOST X Element Ash Pearl/Ash Pearl/Hi-Res Blue BB6088 ASH,NIKE AIR MAX 90 ULTRA 2.0 881106 300 PALM GREEN/GLACIER s. 8Nike Air Max Zero Essential Black / White 6.5Y Women 8NIke Air Max Excellerate 4 Size 11 Running Shoes Dark Grey Pink 806798-009,Nike Lunar Apparent Women's Running Shoe 908998 001 Size 10Camper Twins Womens Black Grey Blue Canvas ShoesNEW Nike Women's Classic Cortez Leather FORREST GUMP WHITE RED 807471-103 10.5 W,Asics Gel Innovate 7 Womens Running Shoes (B) (3393) + Free Aus Delivery!Womens Nike Air Zoom Terra Kiger 3 Trail Running Trainers 749335 400,Mr/Ms Pleaser Women's Flamingo-808 Clear PVC/Black/Clear Heels Easy to use Fast delivery Outstanding function,Skechers BOBS Women's Squad - Star Chase Sneaker, - Choose SZ/Color,ECCO Women's Aspina Toggle Trail Runner, - Choose SZ/ColorASICS Women's Gel-Fit Tempo 3 Cross-Trainer Shoe - Choose SZ/ColorNEW Nike Air Huarache Run Mid Women’s Size 8.5 Clear Jade Black S807313-301,Men's/Women's Ryka Women's Ultimate Blue/Silver Running Sneakers durability New design Popular recommendation,Easy Spirit Women's Mariel Walking Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,PUMA Women's Match Denim WN's Field Hockey Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,Merrell Women's Around Town City Slip On Air Sneaker - Choose SZ/Color,Women's Nike Air Max Sequent 3 Running Shoes Grey/Pink Sizes 6-10 NIB 908993-012,Baskets model 99360 Zoki - Matter - Shoes,Pastry Adult Butter Boot Dance Sneaker, Wheat, Size 10,HOKA ONE ONE Women's Arahi Stability Shoe 7 B(M) US,Kenneth Cole Reaction Women's Fine Glass Wedge Sandal Nude PolyurethaneSperry Top-Sider Women's Sayel Away Boat Shoe Grey Washed Canvasadidas Samba OG Black/White NEW!RPP$150 Womens US5-11, Mens US4-10,adidas Stan Smith Navy White Crackled Patent Womens Originals Trainers Sneakers,Womens Sz 10 Black Reflective Silver Nike Air Max Running Shoes 698903-001 used,$180 Sano by Mephisto Women US 10 Silver Metallic Mary Jane Loafer Walking ShoeNIKE COURT LITE Womens Purple Tennis Trainers 845048 651 NEW

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

Merrel women Trail Glove 4 Persian Red (purple pink orange) shoes size 7,

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.