The evidential support for UBI is overwhelming. Yet, it is not supported enough to pass into law. Why is that?

Two reasons: indecision; and the fact that people do not make decisions based on evidence. They make decisions based on fear. The challenge, therfore, is not to amass more evidence in support (That doesn't work.) but to devise a methodology to overcome that blocking indecision... and to manufacture a fear great enough that people will be motivated to action rather than inaction.

Right now, people are fearful of change and not fearful enough of the status quo. Overcoming the fear of change is accomplished by increasing the fear of the wtatus wuo. One attempt to do this recently has been to incorporate an analysis of AI as a phenomenon that would eliminate large cjunks of employment, most notably in the transportation sector and in white collar work. Even some very wealthy people see UBI as ineveitable for this reason. In spite of this, the tipping point is not on the horizon. Even though there is overwhelming evidence in support of UBI and even though super-wealthy people think it to be the solution for the future, implimentation of UBI is still far off. That means that a powerful enough political block is still against it. This block must be identified.

Right now, indicision prevents us from going forward. This is institutional indecision. Most individuals have fairly firm opinions on the subject. The problem is that the positions have not coalesced enough to form an identifiable political force. Perhaps a wise strategy would be to separate the legal aparatus for supplying a UBI from the actual payment. Putting in place a system of UBI with a zero payout might get us over our indecision. It would constititute progress, an insurance measure, toward a future impleementation.

Indecision, however, needs more than reassurances. Fears do not need to be placated. They need to be generated and stoked. The present fears of an insecure future with UBI needs to be replaced with fears of a present declining trajectory. Anger at the institutional limitation of individual's productivity and freedom matched with fear of further curtailment in the future may provide one rhetorical device to publicly lobby for a UBI.

The key is to generate an emotional response. Fear, greed, and anger will produce results. Logic hasn't and it won't.