Women's Puma Suede Cement Platform Trace Buckle Casual Shoes Cement Suede 36745102 002 936c49

Women's Puma Suede Cement Platform Trace Buckle Casual Shoes Cement Suede 36745102 002 936c49

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: PUMA
Style: 36745102 002 Color: Cement
January 10, 2018

Women's Puma Suede Cement Platform Trace Buckle Casual Shoes Cement Suede 36745102 002 936c49

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.

KEEN Womens 1015389 Raven/Gargoyle Trail / Hiking Shoes Size 6 (417178),VANS WOMAN CASUAL SNEAKER SHOES FREE TIME SUEDE CODE SK8-HI MOC VN000315JTZ,KEEN Targhee II 2 Low WP Waterproof US 8 Hiking Trail Shoes,ASICS GelChallenger 11 Shoe Women's Tennis black-E753Y.9090Keds Women's Champion Embroidered Triangle Sneaker - Choose SZ/Color,Skechers 12822 Relaxed Fit D'Lux Empire Women Black shoe,Saucony Hurricane ISO 2 Running Shoes - Women's Size 11.5, Blk/Charcoal/Coral,Womens Nike Air Huarache Run Pirnt 725076-007 Black/Khaki Brand New Sz 6,Wmns Nike LunarEpic Low Flyknit 2 II Blue Green Women Running Shoes 863780-401,Women's Nike Air Max 1 Pinnacle Venice-Violet Ash [839608 500] Size 7W NIKE AIR PRESTO FLYKNIT ULTRA SZ: 7 WMNS (835738 401),adidas Originals Stan Smith Bold W Womens Classic LifeStyle Shoe Sneakers Pick 1,MBT Swiss Walking Toning Rocker White Athletic Shoes 400167-16 Womens Size 10WMNS NIKE BLAZER HIGH 317808-091 BLACK/MTLC GOLD STAR WOMEN SZ: 7.5 *LAST ONE*,Men's/Women's Skechers Womens Hi - Lite feature excellent Simple,Gentlemen/Ladies PUMA Fierce Velvet Women's Cordovan 19091301 Moderate price Stylish and charming Modern and elegant,Womens NIKE FREE 5.0 TR FIT 5 PRT Running Trainers 704695 601 US 8Nike Wmns Downshifter 8 Black/White-Anthracite Lightweight Running 908994-001Women Sneakers Reebok BS7027 Women Hayasu Training shoesWomen's Nike Air Max+ 2013 Club Pink Silver Running Shoes sz 8.5,Women's Adidas UltraBoost ST Parley Running Shoes AC8207 Blue White Size 7.5Reebok Women's Dmx Lite Slip Walking Shoe, Black/White, 8 M USNike Women's City Loop AA1097-201 SAND summit white desert size 10,NEW Nike Internationalist 828407-608 Womens Shoes Trainers Sneakers SALE,Men/Women New Balance Women's W630v5 Running Shoe elegant Reliable performance Known for its excellent quality,NEW Nike Women's Sz 8 Roshe Run One Flyknit Laser Orange Bright Mango 704927-802Propet Vista - Women's A5500 Diabetic Shoes Black - 6 Medium,adidas Women's Cf Qtflex W Running Shoe - Choose SZ/Color,WOMEN'S NIKE ROSHE RUN PURE PLATINUM GREY/BLACK/WHITE SIZE 11US 100% AUTHENTIC,VANS SK8-HI MARVEL CAPTAIN MARVEL SKATE SHOES MEN'S SIZE 5.5 WOMEN'S 7,

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

New Nike Air Jordan XXXI 31 Women Sz 8 GS 6.5Y Banned Bred 848629 001,

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.