It's easy to see why this is true, but it is also to see that this can be an irrational stance to take at times. Simply put, poverty has costs upon the healthcare system, the educational system, the law enforcement system, the judicial and penal systems, and more. If these costs are greater than what would be offset by guaranteed income, GI is the path that will result in a lower tax burden overall. And as GI probably has a much greater efficiency, there's good reason to think that this might be the case. I'm all for looking into it. Perhaps Milton Freidman was right.
In conjunction with the findings the data produced, it would be interesting to learn of the long term effects (both good and bad) that the recipients perceive the program to have had on their lives.