|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 pre owned and has light wear.Bottom soles are slightly dirty.Heels and toes are lightly scuffed.Insoles and inner lining are slightly dirty. Sides show light dirt .”|
|Width:||W)||US Shoe Size (Men's):||11.5|
|Brand:||Johnston & Murphy||UPC:||012998407419|
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.Summer Hermes Shoes Patent Dress Size 43 (98812Gentleman/Lady Ted Williams Boots Many styles Stylish and fun Strong heat and heat resistancePRADA sneakers man shoes 4E2043 nevada + bike america's cup black,Mens Big Flip Flops Size 12 13 14 15 Beach Holiday thongs Gym Shower,New Calvin Klein Miguel Leather Men Loafers Shoes Sz. 11.5 nvy,New Mens Hot Fashion Flat Heel Summer Beach Flip Flops Slippers Sandals ShoesAlden Chukka Boot Us8.5Brw Leather Shoes (22097,Nunn Bush Mens Myles ST. Moc Toe Slip-on Brown Leather Size 9M Shoes NewECCO 'Soft 7' Sneaker - Moon Rock Leather - Men's Size 44 / 10-10.5US (B51),Men/Women Andrew Charles Mens Loafer Brown TRON High grade Win the praise of customers Vintage tide shoes,NIB $110 Converse Jack Purcell Jack Ox Post Applied Egret 142665C US Mens 11NEW VINEYARD VINES DARK RED NAVY BATIK PRINTED FLIP FLOPS SANDALS MENS SIZE 9VT90 - Vass ALT WEIN - EU43.5 UK9.5 US10.5 Antique Cognac Calf - F Last,men's shoes VOILE BLANCHE 8 () sneakers purple orange suede AB692-D,Weinbrenner Outdoors Hiking Trail Water Sport Sandals Grey Men's Sz 8,Nike Kawa Mens Size 11 Black White Casual Slip On Slides Sandals Shoes F5-250Givenchy Urban Low-Top Street Sneaker 8240 Orang Men's Size 45,Church's Custom Grade Leather Tassel Loafers-Keats- Made @ England- UK SZ 10.5 G,Nike SB Dunk Low Premium BROOKLYN PROJECTS Walk Of Fame WOF QS DS SIZE 11,FitFlop Men's Iqushion Ergonomic Flip-Flop, Midnight Navy Mix, 12 M US,STANCO *Orange/Blue* Luxe Rubberized Calf Leather Mocassini/Loafer Shoes 10.5 US,Adidas Derby ST men's sneakers dark red/black casual shoes trainers NEW,Rockport Hydro Shield Oxford Dress Shoes Men’s Size 9.5 Brown NEW,Supreme Nike 15Aw Air Jordan5 Retro Sneakers 000878 Sk1404 (83455,Dr. Martens Made in England Black Leather Shoe Size US. 7 UK.6.5 EU.40,New Giuseppe Zanotti Mixed Media White/Gray Chain Buckle Sneakers Sz. 41/8 $1395,Brand New Adidas $50 Men's adilette Slides BY9910 White,Mens Womens Slippers Shoes Hollow Out Beach Summer Closed Toe Mules Sandals M525,VT661 John Lobb - RUSSELL II - Chestnut Calf E - 8695 Last,883 Police Cog Casual Trainers Mens Black Fashion Trainers Sneakers Footwear
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.