Well, that's part of the deal if UBI is ever to get off the ground.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right. The left wants the UBI, and the right wants to get rid of government bureaucrats. The left gives up on the government bureaucrats ("gut social programs") and the right gives up on tossing out all forms of welfare.
Of course, both sides are motivated to break the truce. You just admitted that in fact, wanting to not "gut social programs". Enforcing the truce doesn't seem possible.
> Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right.
No, it's not, or at least not by most people who back UBI. There are people who back forms of it on the Left, and people who back forms of it on the Right, and, sure, it's conceivable that one way it might pass is an alliance between those two that involves some compromise, but it's just as plausible that it would get implemented, if at all, by a Right- or Left-leaning governing coalition in a compromise between UBI-favoring elements and others from the same side of the spectrum.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right
By whom? There is nothing outlandish about implementing UBI without gutting every other aspect of the social safety net, it's just that the interests against it want their pound of flesh in exchange for any increase in social services.
For instance, all of this could be paid for with a tiny portion of the US defense budget.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right. The left wants the UBI, and the right wants to get rid of government bureaucrats. The left gives up on the government bureaucrats ("gut social programs") and the right gives up on tossing out all forms of welfare.
Of course, both sides are motivated to break the truce. You just admitted that in fact, wanting to not "gut social programs". Enforcing the truce doesn't seem possible.