Big Sky Cairn

Well maybe not my backyard precisely, but the US Geological Survey released its report on the Bakken-shale formation today stating they estimate there is 3-4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the area. Compare that to the previous estimate of 151 million barrels a little over 10 years ago. This discovery makes the Bakken the richest oil patch in the lower 48 states.

For those not from the Richland county area, which I assume is most everyone, the Bakken is a huge formation about 2 miles down which was first tapped around 2000 near Sidney and runs in roughly a right triangle from Minot south to Dickenson then diagonal northwest through Sidney to the Canadian border. People have known for a quite while that there was some oil in the formation, but no one knew how to get to it until recently.

So far according to USGS, 65 million barrels of oil have been extracted from Elm Coulee (the Richland county formation) in the past 7 years, they think there is another 410 million barrels in that part of the Bakken. This means at the current pace of drilling, Richland County has another 40 years of oil. Further north, Roosevelt, Phillips and Sheridan Counties are sitting on about 850 million barrels.

Put together, this means the State of Montana has the potential to reap a windfall on production taxes. Personally, I was sympathetic to Roy Brown’s idea of using natural resources to create a trust to fund the education shortfall. But the biggest thing for me, as an Eastern Montanan, is I do not want to see the tax dollars created from oil revenue syphoned off to Helena and Western Montana like they were last legislative session. Compared to the revenue put into state coffers, Eastern Montana got the short end of the stick on transportation funding, school funding and almost everything else related to state spending.

I have not mentioned how any new developments will be impacted by the Governor’s positions (or I suppose more accurately, his appointees) on climate change. New oil exploration, especially in the Bakken where there is a lack of natural gas plants, means increased CO2 emissions. But that will have to be a new post entirely.

As mentioned, due to the efforts of Attorney General McGrath, Montana will be exempted from REAL ID. Governor Schweitzer seeing an opportunity to get his name in the paper, shot a letter off to DHS today saying, yeah I agree with what he said.

Initially I thought that maybe this was a conciliatory effort on behalf of the Governor, sort of a way to clear the air and let bygones be bygones. That was quickly clarified;

The governor’s staff said the letter was not a conciliatory gesture

Now that we have that out of the way, what exactly did the Governor have to say? Well on Friday, Homeland Security asked for clarification that the Governor supports the increased security protocols laid out in Attorney General McGrath’s letter that, while not being undertaken in the name of REAL ID, meet the requirements of REAL ID. Today the Governor responded with;

I recognize the question that some recent press coverage might have raised, but I can assure you I stand behind the Attorney General’s letter in its entirety.

Included in the Attorney General’s letter was the outlining of a plan to enhance security of the Montana drivers license including a new data management system. Of course, none of this information will be shared with the Feds, it is for state use only. Because as the Guv so eloquently stated last year;

“Montanans don’t want the federal agents listening to their phone conversations, rifling through their papers, checking on what books they read and monitoring where they go and when. We think they ought to mind their own business,” Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said in a written statement.

When reached for comment today, Governor Schweitzer said he believes Montanans will be proud to be spied upon by state agents.

It is a good day today. Montanans will not be treated like second class citizens due to REAL ID.

Hopefully the State remembers who did, and did not, help in this situation. Cannot say I am surprised about how the deadlock was resolved. Attorney General McGrath acted like an elected public official and did what was right for Montana. Maybe this will be a lesson to our other officials that you do not need to step up on a soapbox in order to help your constituents.

The Governor did say it best though;

“It was becoming the theater of the absurd,” the governor said.

This whole “showdown” had become absurd as illustrated by the content of McGrath’s letter. The letter stated that Montana had no intention of complying with REAL ID, and indeed Montana cannot legally comply with the Act. Yet, DHS accepted the letter because they are in a rush not to create a bureaucratic nightmare for themselves. I am sure the thought of training 30,000+ airport screenings on which ID’s can be accepted and which cannot is not appealing to Chertoff. The feds did not want a showdown with the states anymore than the states wanted a showdown.

So you have to wonder what, if anything, the Governor’s rhetoric did? For me, this whole episode illustrates everything that is wrong with our current Governor. This issue should not have been a divisive confrontation. Every single member of the Montana Legislature voted to opt out of REAL ID. Montana’s congressional delegation worked to delay REAL ID, whether through cutting funding for the program as Rehberg did last year, or through a letter to the Secretary as the Senators did. Most importantly, DHS did not want to go forward with the May 11th deadline because they are not in a position to enforce it. Good ole Schweitzer cannot have cooperation, so he decides to go and pick a fight, either out of ignorance that everyone is with him, or arrogance that he has to see his name in the paper.

Regardless, the situation is resolved. Now the focus should turn to how should Congress implement the 9/11 recommendation to require more secure government issued identification without putting an unfunded mandate on the states.

Finally, an open-ended question, where does the state go from here? I am not a legal scholar by any means, but I am curious if the law passed by the Montana Legislature prohibits the state from adopting security requirements for driver’s licenses found in REAL ID, but the requirements are instituted independent of the federal act.

It seems odd that a law that has become as controversial as Real ID (at least in Montana) passed with such popular margins in Congress (100-0 in the Senate, 368-58 in the House). Why?

Our borders and immigration system, including law enforcement, ought to send a message of welcome, tolerance, and justice to members of immigrant communities in the United States and in their countries of origin. We should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way-including intelligence.

It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system. We must also be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible.

There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities.

Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

And this one too:

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud. These can sometimes be detected.

Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists’ travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.

We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.32

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.33

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

Remember that 9/11 Commission Report? Turns out that among the central recommendations of this report was something like Real ID. That’s where those excerpts are taken from.

Look, liberals love to set their standards way above federal minimums. Except, apparently, when it’s a matter of national security.

Governor Brian Schweitzer is playing a political game with Real ID, but it’s the time and convenience of the people of Montana that are at risk. We’re the ones who are going to be stuck in lines, unable to open bank accounts and generally inconvenienced so that BS can score some political points.

From this article.

Jim’s expecting it to slow down the process so much that several Montanans could end up missing their flights in the process. “We’ve got 2 flights a day. We’ve got one at 6:25 right now and one at 2:00 in the afternoon.” Reporter Aaron Flint asks, “And the first person they see is gonna be you?” Hassler replies, “It’s gonna be me and they’re gonna be screaming at TSA too. There’s gonna be a lot of ‘you’re causin me to miss my flight.”

While others have focused on more over the top rhetoric from Governor Schweitzer, I will focus on what came out last Friday.

Specifically this quote:

‘‘They are working on some things, and Montana is working on some things, and it will be fine,’’ Schweitzer said.

As much as I disagree with the Governor he is an adept politician. He knows that the looming May 11 deadline for REAL ID compliance has a good chance of blowing up in his face if the situation is not resolved.

Now I am a bit under the weather, and this may be the medication talking, but let me lay out a couple scenarios about how I see the REAL ID situation playing out over the next couple weeks.

Right now one of about three things can happen. Either Montana caves to federal demands (unlikely), DHS caves into Montana’s demands (even more unlikely), or some sort of compromise is reached.

The way I see the dominoes falling is that Governor Schweitzer knows he has limited allies in his quixotic crusade outside of Montana. Right now, only Maine and South Carolina have not asked for extensions. He has to seek a way out of the corner he has painted himself into.

According to Friday’s AP article, it looks like the compromise will be coming from Attorney General McGrath’s office. They are alreadly seeking counsel with the Legislature to see if Montana can apply for a waiver. So what if the AG writes the letter to DHS asking for an extension? It would be a win - win for the Governor and the State. Since the letter does not orginate from the Governor’s office, he is free to continue his same old song and dance. All the while, the average Montanan can board a plane flight without being molested by a TSA agent. If there is any blowback from civil liberty groups, the Governor will be able to direct the blame to the federal government and the Attorney General’s office.

Of course this whole situation relies on McGrath being a willing pawn in the Governor’s game.

Just a possibility. As the Governor acknowledged, this game of chicken has to end. This way would seem to make more sense than either DHS or Schweitzer backing down.

I could not let this go without a mention, but it looks like Governor Schweitzer made some international headlines…in Tehran.

UPDATE:

So it looks like the two fine Senators are asking for Homeland to delay implementation for all 50 states.  I am pessimistic by nature, so I do not see anyway Chertoff can get around the fact that the law requires the provisions to go into effect three years after enactment.  Reading Baucus’s comments, one has to wonder if he even bothered to read this bill before he voted for it in 2005.

So it seems Governor Schweitzer would like to continue his quixotic crusade against REAL ID.

I will save my thoughts on why REAL ID is good for the country for a later date. The more pressing question is why is our state government asleep at the wheel on this issue? Come May 11, Montanans will be treated like second class citizens because of our Governor’s actions.

On May 11, the initial security provisions under the REAL ID act come into effect. Unless a citizen presents a federally approved driver’s license or other approved state or tribal card that individual will be subject to secondary screening when trying to board a plan. The only other option is to spend $100 on a passport to fly domestically.

No state, not even those who have not publicly objected to REAL ID, will be able to meet the May 11 deadline. That is why 45 states have applied for waivers to delay the security hassles on their residents until January 1, 2009. At least 12 of those states have said that ultimately they have no intention of complying with REAL ID. So the question becomes, why hasn’t Montana applied for a waiver? Well, I give you the Bloviator in Chief from Montana to answer that:

“We’re not going to buckle under here,” said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. “My guess is the people of Montana would be proud to walk through that line.”

Well Governor, count me as one Montanan who won’t be proud. In fact, while I am being subjected to an intrusive wanding by some fine TSA employee touching me like only my girlfriend should, I will be downright embarrassed.

The right thing to do here would be to join the other 45 states and grant Montanans a reprieve from unnecessary screenings at the airport. This does not need to be a game of chicken, apply for a damn waiver and then get back to your little crusade.

You do not have to support the Act to do what is responsible for the people of Montana.

Finally, it should be noted, despite having the sixth most powerful Senator and a Senator who made repealing REAL ID a central issue to his campaign, the Act is still there. Maybe we need new representation in that body who can get things done.

From a great little Montana fluff-piece in the Economist, we get this gem:

“Ten years ago one of the endangered species in the West was the Democratic governor. Today we’re a solid blue bridge from Alberta to Mexico—Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Washington”, Mr Schweitzer says. Such facts have led to speculation that the future of the Democratic Party lies not in poaching the odd Southern state in presidential elections, but in building a reliable Democratic base amid the Rockies.

I’ve written about this before - and I still think that Montana’s soul is at stake over the next ten years. What scares me is that whenever anyone outside of Montana writes about Montana it sounds a lot like what the Economist said above. Montana is the future of the Democratic Party…

I have two takes on that, because for that to happen, either the Democratic Party or the Mountain West is going to have to change.

The better option is that Democrats move back toward their populist roots abandoning the Liberal ideals of the Californias and Massachusetts. The Liberal Left doesn’t really love the Mountain West, but they tolerate us because we help give them the majorities they need. For the Mountain West to establish itself as the heart of the new Democrat Party those liberals would have to be exorcized from their controlling role and new, more moderate leaders like Baucus and Schweitzer would have to take over. But the truth is, I don’t see that happening - we just don’t have enough electoral votes.

The more realistic option is that it will be the Mountain West and not the Democratic Party that changes. The liberal-wing has too much control in the Democrat party. My guess is that - over the next few decades - as all of the urban liberals retire and want to leave the social paradises they’ve constructed they will look for a good place to nest. Sort of like aliens looking for a new planet to colonize. And national stories like this one that portray Montana and the Mountain West as “the future of the Democratic Party,” will draw them here like an Arecibo message.

I hope I’m wrong, but that’s why I always get an ugly feeling in my gut when Montana gets national press. Those stories aren’t written for Montana. They are written for East Coast liberals who still swoon over western clichés like the ones Brian Schweitzer was oozing:

Mr Schweitzer revels in rural wit: in a previous interview he said he has “more guns than I need and fewer than I want.” Montana has six guns for every resident, he tells me, after asking me if I own one. “In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at…Out here in the West we Democratic governors are just as likely as Republican governors to be packing a pistol.”

When it comes to press, I prefer the kind that’s written in other states and printed in Montana’s papers for Montanans to read - not the other way around.

Everyone loves the kids - especially for their political value. Nothing quite as appealing to a politician as exploitation of children. So it makes perfect (political) sense for Montana to raise the income level for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

It makes a little less sense if you consider the fact that - even at current income caps - this program is only being utilized by a small percentage of eligible families. It would make more sense to put state efforts into “recruiting” already eligible participants - the poorest families - before adding more wealthy families.

Of course, it makes even less sense if you consider that Mr. Count-Your-Chickens-Before-They-Hatch Max Baucus has refused to work across the aisle to get “his” CHIP legislation passed in Congress. It’s been six months since Max declared victory after the Senate sent a bill to the President that everyone knew was going to be vetoed. No votes yet.

But you heard it here first. CHIP will rear it’s ugly head again - right around election time in September or October. Because everyone loves kids and nothing quite as appealing to a politician as exploitation of children.

I’ve done extensive research - hours upon hours of pouring through books at Mansfield and the MPL - to determine exactly what would happen if Montana were to secede from the United States. This guide can be considered the definitive description of what will transpire if the unthinkable occurs (of course, I’ve seen enough Star Trek episodes to realize that by describing this scenario, it’s likely that I will have changed the outcome - darn paradoxes).

So we all know that the Judicial Branch is way out of control, what with legislating from the bench and letting lawyers exist. Anyway, in the case D.C. v. Heller the Supreme Court is going to decide if the good God-fearing people of Montana are too scary to own guns. (As a side note here, the people of DC just love their “taxation without representation” martyrdom and in order to not deny them their euphoric agony, I think someone ought to consider taking away their access ot the Judicial System altogether - especially considering how they use it). Okay, back on track. Now in Montana, “When you pry it from my cold dead hands,” is always the answer to any questions about gun control or damn dirty apes, so understandably people are upset when Uncle Sam came knocking with an inkling to take away our guns. Our elected officials put their heads together and decided that the best course of action was to hold their breath until Big Brother did what they want. It’s sort of a state tradition.

But should the Supreme Court not do what it’s told and Montana ends up seceding, it’s not quite clear what will happen. Since Montana was never an independent nation, and “territory” doesn’t get you a seat at the international lunch table, the first question is - what is Montana if not a state? No one knew - until now.

See, while the Congressional Delegation will likely be exiled to Washington, DC (a tough fate for Denny and Jon who still have Montana roots, but a welcome change for DC-resident Max who is getting rather sick of the commute) the state government will remain intact. Governor Brian Schweitzer, using the political capital he’s sacrificed seven Jags for (it’s a little known fact that like Lassie, Jag is replaced once a year for a newer younger dog - the old Jag is eaten by environmentalists) will finally be in a position to get what he’s wanted since his first day on the job in Helena. A new job.

A Presidency.

By the sheer will-to-power of Brian Schweitzer will declare himself President of Montana - a glorious new nation. Brad Johnson will be sent off to investigate a potato famine in Idaho and in his absence, President Schweitzer will legitimize his position by holding a plebiscite (of Montana editorial boards). Unsurprisingly, the Montana press will approve of his Administration with a shocking 99% of the vote (1% abstained - an intern concerned with press independence - resulting in much eye rolling and laughing). With this undeniable Mandate from the People (who are Media), President Schweitzer will move the Capital to Missoula - which he will rename Saint Schweitzerberg. The Grizzlies will be guaranteed a National Championship every year since the Bobcats will never beat them.

For the first 100 hours, things will go pretty smoothly. But the glory is to be short-lived because the war-monger George W. Bush is about to warn his country that Montana has WMDs (”We know, because we put them there“). President Schweitzer presents a clear and present danger to the safety of American people (he spend a lot of his time “invading” neighboring states and San Francisco before he became President). The time to act is now. And Congress looks likely to grant him the power he needs to invade…

Continued in Part II.