As I understand it, CATO isn't so much right-wing as libertarian, which immediately has a small-government connotation to it. To support itself it often points

As I understand it, CATO isn't so much right-wing as libertarian, which immediately has a small-government connotation to it. To support itself it often points out government fraud and waste, to which I happily acquiesce there is plenty (defense spending even the Joint Chiefs are explicitly against comes to mind). Unfortunately, taking care of the less fortunate gets rolled into these arguments, only sometimes on purpose. It's rather difficult to individually consider the human benefit to welfare programs when congressmen/women with ties to defense-industry districts can just as easily make an argument for the jobs and wages paid to the working class because of those programs. I think this is why (very much conjecture-ing here) there seems to be a groundswell of support for the idea of guaranteed income. If you can solve some of the individual woes people have collectively by giving everyone a basic income, it's easier to argue for and against government spending for individual programs, because far fewer will be able to have such a socially destructive effect if they are cancelled. Just a thought.