Reynolds’ aid plan for kids provides food and questions

THE GAZETTE’S EDITORIAL

Gov. Kim Reynolds is seeking a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use federal dollars normally spent providing the electronic transfers to help families buy summer food for kids to pay for a state-administered program.

Last year, Reynolds turned down $29 million in federal food aid for kids, arguing money given directly to families won’t go for nutritious foods. Instead, the state initiated a $900,000 program to provide monthly boxes of selected foods at distribution points across Iowa. The decision to punt federal aid drew derision from hunger advocates and Democrats.

Reynolds now wants to expand that program using federal funds. The Reynolds administration estimates the state effort would reach 300,000 kids, roughly 56,000 more than would be served by direct cash aid.

There are things to like about Reynolds’ expanded plan. It would provide food to families with annual incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level, $25,820 for a family of three. The current eligibility level is 185 percent. Delivery is available to families that lack transportation. The governor has promised a “rigorous” outreach effort to inform Iowans about the program.

But a waiver may or may not be accepted. Is creating a labor-intensive distribution system the best way to get food to kids? It seems to us the current straightforward system doesn’t need reinvention.

Reynolds contends making sure the food families get is healthy is the reason why state supervision is needed. This assumes that low-income families provided with additional dollars will blow it on junk food.

Studies don’t bear that out. Given more dollars, low-income shoppers will buy more healthy food. Related research on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, shows grocery buying habits among recipients largely mirror other shoppers not on assistance. The old, offensive myths about Mountain Dew being the top purchase for those with food aid die hard.

Direct payments are a better way to guarantee kids are getting help without logistical hurdles.

It strikes us that, with billions of dollars sitting in surplus, Iowa could do both. It could provide the matching dollars for direct payments and fund its own program. The result would be more food for Iowa families. Who would object?

We’d like to trust the governor’s motives. But Reynolds has repeatedly shown disdain for low-income Iowans, the ones, she says, who have turned safety net programs into a “hammock.” She’s even signed legislation making it more difficult 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 kids, not winning a fight with the Biden administration.

Comments: (319) 398-8262; editorial@thegazette.com