In the real world it's called supplantation

[jimpeel]

In their usual zeal for spending our money, usually foolishly, the government hacks have already begun supplantation of funds from Obamacare. They have already tapped the fund three times since its passage. Anyone think that habit is going to change anytime soon?

SOURCE

Money slated for health law gets detoured
Lawmakers tap fund three times within a year

By Paige Winfield Cunningham - The Washington Times

Thursday, November 24, 2011

In cash-strapped Washington, President Obama’s $1 trillion health care law is presenting a tempting target for lawmakers seeking funds for other projects, as Congress last week raided the health care piggy bank for the third time in less than a year.

Congress last week axed a part of Democrats’ signature domestic achievement to find $11 billion to cover the cost of repealing a withholding tax that otherwise would have hit government contractors in 2013. Mr. Obama signed that bill into law on Monday.

The withholding bill follows two other efforts — one in December and another in April — that reworked the health care law to squeeze savings for other priorities. The December bill funded higher payments for doctors who treat Medicare patients, and the April legislation repealed a paperwork provision in the original health care law that businesses said would be onerous.

All told, Congress and the president have tapped some $50 billion earmarked to pay for benefits and programs in the health care overhaul in future years to fund more-immediate spending needs.

Both earlier efforts dealt with health care issues, but the bill Mr. Obama signed Monday marks the first time that the massive 2010 law has been tapped to fund something completely unrelated.

“They don’t want to open it up. They’re getting forced to open it up now and then, but to open it up for budgetary reasons, I think the pressures are pretty real,” said former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin, who said it’s easier to cut future benefits than it is to cut programs that are already paying out.

Most of the health care law’s benefits won’t begin paying out for several years, and Mr. Holtz-Eakin said he expects legislators to revisit the law again before then.

The failure of the bipartisan supercommittee this week to come up with a plan to shrink the federal deficit and find spending cuts and revenues is likely to increase the pressure to raid the health care program for funds.

Rising cap

In December and April, lawmakers adjusted the formula that calculated how much of a subsidy would be given initially to buy health insurance through the new exchanges. Under the original law, many Americans would receive a subsidy larger than their income reflected, but Congress capped the amount that they would have to repay.

In December, Congress raised the repayment cap — effectively lowering the government’s payout tab — and used the savings to cover higher payments to Medicare doctors. In April, Congress raised the cap again, this time retargeting the money to cover the costs of repealing the so-called 1099 reporting requirement that small businesses said was far too burdensome.

Dipping into the Affordable Care Act to fund other projects angers some supporters of the law, including Igor Volsky, with the Center for American Progress, though Mr. Volsky said the raids have been relatively small in the scope of the whole law.

“I don’t think lawmakers should be taking money out of the law, particularly since the law hasn’t been implemented,” he said. “We don’t know how things are going to shake out. Give it a chance to work; maybe then you can go back in and make some changes.”

<MORE>

 

[2minkey]

if you're going to wank with a fancy word, might want to pick one a little more fitting.

 

[Winky]

huh?

 

[2minkey]

"supplantation" is a lousy choice given the context. it really doesn't work, and suggests that a fancy word is more important than a useful word for our friend.

 

[jimpeel]

The word was used in context and is not just a "fancy word." Perhaps a few examples would edify you as to its use and meaning.

sup·plant (s-plnt)
tr.v. sup·plant·ed, sup·plant·ing, sup·plants
1. To usurp the place of, especially through intrigue or underhanded tactics.
2. To displace and substitute for (another): The word processor has largely supplanted electric typewriters. See Synonyms at replace.

[Middle English supplanten, from Old French supplanter, from Latin supplantre, to trip up : sub-, sub- + planta, sole of the foot; see plat- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------

An example of the use of "supplant" as a legal term in context

28 C.F.R. § 90.56 Non-supplantation.
Title 28 - Judicial Administration

Title 28: Judicial Administration
PART 90—VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Subpart C—Indian Tribal Governments Discretionary Program

§ 90.56 Non-supplantation.

Federal funds received under this part shall be used to supplement, not supplant funds that would otherwise be available to State and local public agencies for expenditure on activities described in this part.

NOT just a "fancy word."

-------------------------------------------

Another source:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1746

Overall Funding for Low-Income Programs Could Decline as States Use Federal Funds in Place of Their Own Funds

States could use superwaivers to shift federal resources into areas previously funded with state resources. That would allow states to withdraw state funds from such areas and use the funds for other purposes, such as bolstering their general treasuries. This practice, known as supplantation, would reduce combined federal-state funding for low-income programs.

For example, a state could supplant state funding for child care with federal funding by obtaining a superwaiver that allowed it to use federal food stamp funds for child care.

...

Supplantation has occurred in the past, most notably in TANF. The purposes of TANF are very broad, so federal TANF funds can be used to fund many programs that historically have received state funding. While most federal TANF funding has been used to supplement state resources, it is clear that supplantation has occurred in a number of states as well. In a 2001 report, the General Accounting Office found that federal TANF funds had been used to supplant state funding for low-income programs during the late 1990s. That supplantation occurred even during the period of the late 1990s, a period of robust state budget surpluses, is a matter of particular concern.[5] The risks of supplantation under a superwaiver would be especially large during economic downturns, when states face substantial budget deficits.

...

The superwaiver, if approved, would create many new opportunities for supplantation using federal funds from other programs, such as the Food Stamp Program and public housing. The risks of shifting funds from programs such as these to unrelated purposes would be large.

[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal Partnership, GAO-01-828, August 2001. The GAO study has been cited by proponents of the superwaiver because it found that overall spending on low-income programs — including health programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP — increased in the 1990s, despite the supplantation of TANF funds. It is important to note, however, that state health care costs grew rapidly during the period studied, for reasons wholly unrelated to the TANF block grant or the ways in which state funds that were freed up by supplantation were used. Moreover, increased overall funding during the late 1990s is hardly surprising given that the economy was strong and state budgets flush. The finding that overall funding for low-income programs rose during this period does not negate the study’s findings that states used TANF funds in ways that supplanted state funds, even during strong economic times.

NOT just a "fancy word."

-------------------------------------------

Used as a subject of a legal document:

SOURCE

SUBJECT: Clarification on CalWORKs Supplantation Prohibition

The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification and guidance to colleges on the legal requirement prohibiting the use of CalWORKs funds to supplant existing funding and services.

<MORE>

NOT just a "fancy word."

 

[2minkey]

in its common usage, you could have chosen a much better word.

oh right, obama, the great usurper. yawn.

so you want to get into highly specific legal language? why would you use that stuff to begin with, especially given your general level of literacy?

WANKY WANKY, jim.

 

[jimpeel]

in its common usage, you could have chosen a much better word.

And that word would be ................???????????

so you want to get into highly specific legal language? why would you use that stuff to begin with, especially given your general level of literacy?

To edify those who are ignorant of the use and context of the word. Do you need the etymology?

 

[2minkey]

To edify those who are ignorant of the use and context of the word.

yeah jim you're the great super-wank edifier.

maybe i should start posting some of my academic writings to show you how stupid that kind of thing looks.

 

[2minkey]

And that word would be ................???????????

a flim-flam? robbing peter to pay paul? getting up mary's skirt? there are many common language choices that don't require extraneous wankery.

 

[jimpeel]

a flim-flam? robbing peter to pay paul? getting up mary's skirt? there are many common language choices that don't require extraneous wankery.

So you are saying that I should have used several words when a single word would suffice to convey the same message. Got it.

I should characterize you as "over explanatory and excessively descriptive" instead of "verbose".

Okay.

Oops. I mean "That's all right by me."

 

[2minkey]

most people readily understand verbose. keep on wankin!