Governor Kim Reynolds has requested a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use federal funds normally spent on electronic funds transfers to help families purchase summer food for their children and to fund a state-administered program.

Last year, Reynolds rejected $29 million in federal food assistance for children, arguing that money paid directly to families cannot be used for nutritious food. Instead, the state launched a $900,000 program to distribute monthly boxes of selected food items to distribution sites across Iowa. The decision to cut federal aid was derided by hunger activists and Democrats.

Reynolds now wants to expand this program with federal funding. The Reynolds administration estimates that the state measures would reach 300,000 children, and about 56,000 more who would benefit from direct cash assistance.

There are some good things about Reynolds’ expanded plan. It would provide food to families with annual incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level, or $25,820 for a family of three. The current eligibility threshold is 185 percent. Families without transportation can have the program delivered. The governor has promised to “rigorously” educate Iowans about the program.

But this sacrifice can be accepted or not. Is creating a labor-intensive distribution system the best way to get food to children? For us, this is the current, straightforward system that does not need reinvention.

Reynolds argues that government control is needed to ensure that the food families receive is healthy, which presumes that low-income families given extra money will spend it on junk food.

Studies don’t bear that out. When they have more money, low-income shoppers buy healthier foods. Similar research on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) shows that the shopping habits of food assistance recipients largely mirror those of other shoppers who don’t receive assistance. The old, offensive myths that Mountain Dew is the most popular purchase for those receiving food assistance persist.

Direct payments are a better way to ensure that children receive help without logistical hurdles.

It occurs to us that Iowa, with its billions in surplus funds, could do both. It could provide the equivalent amounts for direct payments and fund its own program. The result would be more food for Iowa families. Who would disagree?

We’d like to trust the governor’s motives, but Reynolds has repeatedly shown disdain for low-income Iowans, who she says have turned the social security system into a “hammock.” She even signed legislation making it harder for Iowans to qualify for food assistance through SNAP.

If the USDA rejects the waiver, Reynolds should accept the direct payment plan. This is about feeding children, not about winning a battle with the Biden administration.

(319) 398-8262; [email protected]

Opinion pieces reflect the views of the writer or the editorial staff of The Gazette. You can join the discussion by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column, or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to [email protected].