How does The Rattlesnake Party expect to pay for so many Major Projects at the same time?

First, by ending our failed Imperialist experiment in Iraq. Here’s the math:

Manhattan Project Cost in 2008 dollars = $30BB over 5 years or $6BB per year

Apollo Program Cost in 2008 dollars = $150BB over 13 years or $12BB per year

Average Cost of Major Program is estimated at roughly $9BB per year


Cost of the Iraq War in 2008 dollars = $125BB per year or

The capacity for 10 Major Programs, Infrastructure Improvements, Health Care, and an additional $10 ~ 15BB into the General Fund—or reduction in net tax revenues!

Next, by streamlining tax codes (see Fair and Simple Tax) to close all loopholes, taxes would be effectively lowered for most businesses and citizens, yet some of the largest corporations would be required to pay their fair share and/or repatriate their dollars. In conjunction with reduction of waste and corruption in Federal Government, this would most probably result in a net gain in revenues. Let us assume, however, no change, in tax revenues collected, and no boost to the economy at large by freeing up millions of man-hours currently burdened by tax calculations every year.

Part of the streamlining efforts would also be to better organize and coordinate CURRENT AGENCIES to improve government functions. Parallel to that complex process, the Federal Government could work with CURRENT BENEFICIARIES of government grants, funds, and assistance to coordinate their efforts.

An example of this would be Food (number 6 on our top ten list). The relevant agencies would be reorganizing their budgets according to the list of National Priorities, which the Major Projects represent. So technically Food Security needs to be a relatively High Priority for Homeland Security; Nutrition and Content moreso the FDA; Production means and methods even moreso the Dept. of Agriculture; and so on.

We don’t want to continue the current deficit spending, so even with the War Savings, Budget Reprioritization and Optimization, and the Intra-Departmental task efficiencies lets assume that for each Major Project and it’s priorities only 85% of the budget is actually already there.

We would suggest under current ostensible Department configurations the budget is actually already there albeit currently balkanized and politicized with no harmonious or unifying vision throughout the agencies and their spending habits extant.

Any short falls could be made up by venturing with private companies currently spending private moneys in Research and Development, but more importantly removing some of the redundancies by efficient coordination and sharing of data within a secure study group setting.

Further efficiencies could be found in cross-mission coordination and “pollination” for Major Projects. For instance, Project #2 Pollution Abatement would rely on coordination with and information from Projects #’s 9, 5, and 1 (Vehicles, Energy Independence, and Global Warming). By allowing non-classified, and restricted information to securely pass between the Projects, redundancies are reduced offering greater purchase power for the Government and Joint Venture Partners. This suggests a controlled system, or a massive Government-seeded Intellectual Incubator System.

One could argue this could slip into a communist or socialist state model, except there is no compulsory component for any companies or citizens to participate, as such. However, it would be up to the Project Coordinators in conjunction with OBM to carefully budget to incentivize Private Partnerships.

For example, in Curing Cancer (number 3), lets assume Big Pharma Company #1 continues current practices of hording research data and drug planning, and Big Pharma Company #2, a direct competitor, elects to join the Major Project Group searching for Cancer cures and interacts in a transparent manner to coordinate all its results with that of other companies participating in the larger goal(s).

Both companies will be subject to the same market forces. We believe that FDA testing must be reorganized towards a scientific, rather than political, polarity; We believe that the government, medical organizations, and individual citizens should be allowed to purchase drugs made in a regulated, verifiable, and safe manner from anywhere that has the lowest price (fair and free market values); and we can see a precipitous momentum towards some version of state sponsored (so-called Single Payer) health care (sooner or later… and although quasi-socialist at best, it would create competitive equity between the current advantage over 75% of the Industrialized world holds over America in terms of their corporate subsidy, a virtual reverse tariff, from some version of Single Payer extant in those same states). Therefore, both companies will have to really spend a lot of money over time to develop the next phase of Cancer treatment, while continuing to earn fewer and fewer dollars on current drugs they created, as market forces intervene to reduce profits.

Company #2, participating in this continued example with the Major Project in some well defined and standard Joint Venture Process, may simultaneously accelerate its results by obtaining confidential data sets from others in its study and data groups, expect some additional assistance financially, cost reductions through efficiencies of scale, and discover joint cause products (an improvement on current processes or products) with other JV companies participating within the Major Project Group.

That distinct advantage costs them no less of their R&D budget than Company #1, but it stretches their dollar and purchase power out in such a way that even at a minimum the benefits to their company is a reasonable trade off when looking at the BCA. Moreover, it would probably allow them tax credit opportunities in certain cases, and open up the possibility to additional joint venture partnerships and product cross-pollination.

The downside to this private-public model for Major Projects is that any and every company, which is expending capital into any Venture, must relinquish the scarcity mentality.

Like the “Manhattan Project” and “Apollo Project” before, it is possible to imagine a reasonable level of internal confidentiality and National Security via compartmentalization, management, and coordination. That said, by making open in a controlled and restricted environment their data sets, some propriety is lost in exchange for more chances at additional propriety, product innovation, and most importantly SERVICE TO THE HIGHER GOOD.