Exactly.

It's not about the kid in Palo Alto who doesn't need it, but gets it anyway.

It's about the kid who lives in poverty and should get it, but doesn't, because their family didn't properly submit forms A65, B39, and F12 proving their annual income meets the ever-changing requirements.

Giving a benefit to everyone is by far the simplest and most effective way to be sure no one falls through the bureaucratic cracks (though it's probably more accurate to call them gaping chasms than 'cracks').

Also, it doesn't stigmatize the kids that do receive the free meals.

You’re suggesting that buying free lunches for the 92% of students who don’t need it [0] is more efficient than just paying teachers more or hiring more intervention specialists or counselors?

[0] https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CA/schools/2961004596/school...

Many parents who can afford things still don't pay for them for their kids. Not sure why nobody thinks of those kids, there ought to be millions of them...

You think there are millions of US American school-age children whose parents voluntarily undernourish them? Out of 73 million children under 18 in the US, that's at least several percent. Do you have a citation?