There are two views of Pennsylvania’s plan to require an asset test for people seeking food stamps.

One is that such a test would help ensure that the program helps only those who really need the food stamps. Gov. Tom Corbett has said the current level of dependence “is unsustainable over the long term.”

The other viewpoint expresses concern that the asset test might ultimately hurt people who genuinely qualify for the federal benefit while struggling to recover from the effects of the recession.

While both sides make valid points, implementation of the asset test should predominate, although it should be accompanied by safeguards to ensure that the legitimately needy are not harmed.

The asset test under Keystone State consideration would fall in line with the most stringent limits that federal law allows.

That would allow no more than $2,000 in savings or other applicable assets for many households to be eligible for food stamps. The limit would be $3,250 for households with someone who is over 60 or disabled.

Exempt would be houses and retirement savings, but second cars valued at more than $4,650 would count.

State residents now can get food stamps if they make 160 percent or less of the federal poverty level, which is about $35,300 for a family of four. However, Pennsylvania applicants who earn more than that can sometimes qualify by deducting expenses for housing, medical treatment and child or dependent care.

According to an article in Wednesday’s Butler Eagle, Pennsylvania’s food stamp guidelines are in the middle of the pack of states in terms of generosity.

But since December 2007, the purported official start of what is termed by many as the “Great Recession,” the number of Pennsylvania food stamp recipients has grown about 50 percent, bringing the total number served by the benefit to 1.8 million residents.

The maximum for a family of four under the federally funded benefit is $668 a month.

Carey Miller, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Welfare, has estimated that the proposed asset test would eliminate about 2 percent of Pennsylvania’s food stamp recipients.

Despite that seemingly low percentage, a significant amount of savings would be possible. And, it’s possible the estimate might be low, although it also could be high.

Still, an asset test is a way of helping to ensure that only those truly in need of food stamps obtain them.

People on both sides of the food stamp issue should acknowledge the concerns of the other. And, Corbett is right: Even though states increasingly have been relaxing barriers to getting the benefit, the level of dependence is unsustainable over the long run.

With the recession having eased somewhat, this is a good time to do what Pennsylvania is proposing.