If the parents are committing fraud because they make too much money to qualify for the program wouldn't that mean if the parents were exposed then denied program benefits they would have enough money to feed their kids anyways?

I guess I don't understand why it means kids would starve? Is the assumption the parents are evil negligible people who will refuse to feed their children if they can't cheat the system to have their kids fed for free?

Parents who need the help still get the help and kids still eat. Parents who lied about needing the help will no longer get it and feed their kids themselves so kids still eat.

Where is starvation coming into play? And where has your foster care comment come from? I don't understand.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

If the parents are committing fraud because they make too much money to qualify for the program wouldn't that mean if the parents were exposed then denied program benefits they would have enough money to feed their kids anyways?

Very likely not. Often means testing ignores context. Like, for example, they may technically make enough money to disqualify but have medical or student debt.

I guess I don't understand why it means kids would starve?

There's a history in the US of lunches being physically taken away from students in such situations as well as denying diplomas for "lunch debt".

And where has your foster care comment come from? I don't understand.

If this were approached like other efforts, like Florida's LGBTQ+ suppression laws, it may be explicitly part of the law. Otherwise, if it carries a sentence involving jail time, it would be an implicit one.