BCT Editorial – 5/13/07

This page was last updated on May 14, 2007.

Get real; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 13, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Lawmakers love to pass laws that somebody else has to pay for.”

[RWC] And let’s not forget a local newspaper that can find few government spending programs it doesn’t like.

“Such is the case with the federal Real ID Act, a nationalized system for driver’s licenses that was supposed to take effect next year but has been postponed.”

[RWC] Note that nowhere in this editorial will you read what the Real ID Act requires. There’s a reason.

First, the Real ID Act is not “a nationalized system for driver’s licenses.” According to CNET News.com, the act requires “a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.” That ID card does not need to be a driver’s license, though it probably makes the most sense.

Second, the act requires states issuing the ID cards to employ measures intended to make sure a person is who he says he is. According to CNET, this means you must “document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.” After you provide this info, the state “will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.”

Can someone tell me why this hasn’t been standard practice for decades?

“Civil libertarians have been spooked about Real ID since it was passed by Congress as part of a 2005 bill funding the war in Iraq and Asian tsunami aid. McClatchy Newspapers reports they argued that it would create a national identity card, and they fear it will establish a centrally accessible system through which the federal government can monitor citizens.”

[RWC] Note the editorial doesn’t identify the alleged “civil libertarians,” though this may simply be code for the ACLU. I’d be willing to bet a significant number of these “civil libertarians” support firearm bans, support illegal immigration, and have no problem with the reams of personal data collected from hundreds of millions of Americans each year when they complete their income tax forms.

“Given the Bush administration’s disdain for constitutional rights and its our-way-is-the-only-way approach to governance, their concerns are valid. This administration believes it can do anything it wants to anybody it wants in the name of fighting terrorism.”

[RWC] Another drive-by accusation without supporting evidence.

The editorial conveniently forgot to remind us most or all of the 9/11 hijackers used fraudulently obtained driver’s licenses to board the planes. The editorial also failed to note “The 9/11 Commission Report” (page 390) recommended “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.”

“But it’s another aspect of this law that is drawing major opposition from state governments - its costs and who will pick up the tab.

“Critics argue Real ID is a $23 billion unfunded mandate. The federal Department of Homeland Security puts the tab at $14 billion.”

[RWC] Regarding the $23 billion vs. $14 billion, I could be wrong, but I believe the editorial is comparing apples and oranges.

According to a Stateline.org story, in addition to the $14.6 billion cost to the states estimated by DHS, DHS also estimates “$7.9 billion in costs on individuals and $617 million on the federal government.” Add those three numbers and you get $23.1 billion.

Unfortunately, since the editorial didn’t cite its source for the $23 billion figure, I can’t be sure what that figure represents.

FYI, the aforementioned article said state motor vehicle administrators estimated last year the cost to the states would be $11 billion vs. the DHS estimate of $14.6 billion.

“Stateline.org reports Congress has appropriated $40 million to meet the law’s requirements. As inadequate as that is, states won’t be able to use what little federal money is available to defray costs. Homeland security officials say that amount will be given out as grants to develop best practices. That means states would have to pick up almost the entire tab.”

[RWC] Since the editorial didn’t provide any context, I will. As of 2006, Pennsylvania housed about 4.2% of the U.S. population. If the cost is prorated by population, the $14.6 billion means about $610 million for Pennsylvania. If the cost is prorated by state, it’s about $286 million for PA.

There’s one other thing the editorial omitted. The figure, whatever it is, is a one-time cost to implement the required processes and reissue IDs/driver’s licenses.

“While the civil libertarian argument hasn’t had much traction, the unfunded mandate has.

“Montana and Washington have passed binding legislation to opt out, and six states - Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine and North Dakota - have passed resolutions opposing the law. Meanwhile, McClatchy reports Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Oklahoma are poised to follow, and similar legislation has been introduced this year in another 20 states.”

[RWC] Is “opting out” really an option? Once the law goes into effect, citizens of states that don’t comply won’t be able to use state IDs to board airplanes, enter federal buildings, et cetera.

“It’s time for Congress to get real. If it wants Real ID, it should pay for it, not the states.”

[RWC] Earth to the Times. Neither Congress nor the states pay for anything. The money comes from the paychecks, pension checks, et cetera of private citizens. This Times position is consistent with its preference to push spending and taxes up the chain. Why? Invariably, the further up the chain you push spending and taxes, the more is spend and wasted.