|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:||“Shoes are in condition and have only been a few times. Bottom soles are slightly dirty and show signs of very light wear. Heels and toes of both shoes show no wear and are very clean. Insoles and inner lining are slightly dirty and show very little wear. Outsides of both shoes have a few marks/scratches. Shoes show very little wear and are in excellent condition.”|
|Color:||Polo Brown||US Shoe Size (Men's):||12|
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.Saint Laurent Boots 43Blk Leather Shoes (80442,Rockport- Margin Oxfords, Men's Size 15 M, BlackMEN'S WALGATE SANDALS SLIDES COMFORTABLE CASUAL MEDIUM (D,M) RANGER 22033 NEW,Quiksilver Haleiwa Sandal - Black / Red / Green - New,Nunn Bush Men's SCHOONER Moc toe Camel Leather Shoes 84682-228cole haan country brown leather sandals 11,Brand New Okabashi Men's Torino Weave Brown Sandal Waterproof All Sizes USA,MERRELL Outback Navy/Gray Sport Sandals Shoes Men's Size: 9,Men's Wedding Sherwani Mojari Handmade Shoes Traditional Punjabi Jutti US11 blue,Rockport Men’s MDGD Rocksand Leather Walking Shoes Size 14M D1213/,$1690 Authentic GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN Men's Puff Strap Not Yeezy Sneakers,69 Slam Unisex Savana Blue Thongs - Size 38 - Sandals Flipflops,Jordan SAMPLE 14 XiV Chambray Tar Heels Promo,A Bathing Ape Adid2018Ss Dame4 Bape Sneakers 26Cm 010618 Adid(20723,2017 New Summer Flat Sandals and slippers Bakham Leisure Soft Flip Flops EVA Bea,Danner Mountain Light Bison Leather Us9.5Brw Shoes (41012$295 Polo Ralph Lauren Michael Lagoon Suede Spain Leather Chukka Boots Shoes 7.5TBS EDGARD, sneaker bass man navy blue,HOGAN MEN'S SUEDE LOAFERS MOCCASINS NEW H262 BIRO BLUE 751,Vans Buttersoft SK8-Hi Reissue CA fuxia pink men causal shoes KXJF7M US 8Tim Coppens x Common Projects Sneaker Runway Piece / US 7 /,NEW CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN Lou Spikes Flat Suede Textile Louis Orlato Sneakers 39,5,HOGAN MEN'S SHOES LEATHER TRAINERS SNEAKERS NEW INTERACTIVE BLUE FF1Cole Haan Mens Brown Leather 11 M Slip On Casual Shoes,Ariat Men's Brown/Green Workhog VentTEK Slip Resistant Work Boots 10020083 SALE,Baldinini Suede Italian Shoes Summer Collection New Sizes 6,11,New Puma Mens Ignite Limitless Knit Olive Green Athletic Sneakers Size 9,Dansko Jackson Water Resistant Leather Pull Up Shoes, Men's Size 11.5-12, Brown,VTA-843: Vass Shoes - Blue Calf - US10.5 - EU43.5 - R LastSteve Madden Mens Inflame Black Trainer Fashion Sneakers 13 Medium (D) BHFO 0204,
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.