EPIC Report: “REAL ID Implementation Review: Few Benefits, Staggering Costs”

EPIC Report: “REAL ID Implementation Review: Few Benefits, Staggering Costs” (PDF; 450 KB)
Source: Electronic Privacy Information Center

Throughout its history, the United States has rejected the idea of a national identification system. Yet, the Department of Homeland Security continues to push forward a system of identification that has been widely opposed. The REAL ID Act mandates that State driver’s licenses and ID cards follow federal technical standards and verification procedures issued by Homeland Security. REAL ID also enables tracking, surveillance, and profiling of the American public.

May 11, 2008 was the statutory deadline for implementation of the REAL ID system, but not one State is in compliance with the federal law creating a national identification system. In fact, 19 States have passed resolutions or laws rejecting the national ID program. The Department of Homeland Security has faced so many obstacles that the agency now plans an implementation deadline of 2017 — nine years later than the 2008 statutory deadline.

Homeland Security claims that it is making strides in implementing the national ID program. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff encourages the use of the REAL ID system for a wide variety of purposes unrelated to the law that authorized the system. In an opinion column written by Secretary Chertoff after the publication of the final rule in January, he said, “embracing REAL ID” would mean it would be used to “cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities.” None of these uses for the REAL ID have a legal basis. Each one creates a new risk for Americans who are already confronting the staggering problem of identity theft.

Last year, EPIC submitted detailed comments to the DHS on the draft proposal for REAL ID. With the assistance of many experts, we attempted to address the enormous challenge in the project proposal. In the following report, EPIC details the many problems with the final plan to implement this vast national identification system. The REAL ID system remains filled with threats to privacy, security and civil liberties that have not been resolved.

New From the GAO

New GAO Reports, Correspondence and Testimonies (PDFs)
Source: Government Accountability Office
15 May 2008
+ Reports
1. Nursing Homes: Federal Monitoring Surveys Demonstrate Continued Understatement of Serious Care Problems and CMS Oversight Weaknesses
2. Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs
3. 2010 Census: Bureau Needs to Specify How It Will Assess Coverage Follow-up Techniques and When It Will Produce Coverage Measurement Results
4. Smithsonian Institution: Board of Regents Has Implemented Many Governance Reforms, but Ensuring Accountability and Oversight Will Require Ongoing Action
5. Credit and Debit Cards: Federal Entities Are Taking Actions to Limit Their Interchange Fees, but Additional Revenue Collection Cost Savings May Exist
6. Financial Audit: Congressional Award Foundation’s Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 Financial Statements
7. DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress in Establishing Corporate Management Controls Needs to Be Replicated Within Military Departments
–
+ Correspondence
1. Depot Maintenance: Issues and Options for Reporting on Military Depots
–
+ Testimonies
1. Defense Contracting: Progress Made in Implementing Defense Base Act Requirements, but Complete Information on Costs Is Lacking, by John K. Needham, director, acquisition and sourcing management issues, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2. Information Management: Challenges in Implementing an Electronic Records Archive, by Linda D. Koontz, director, information management issues, before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
3. Congressional Review Act: Applicability to CMS Letter on State Children’s Health Insurance Program, by Dayna K. Shah, managing associate general counsel, before the Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Agricultural Productivity in the United States

Agricultural Productivity in the United States
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

It is widely agreed that increased productivity is the main contributor to economic growth in U.S. agriculture. This data set provides estimates of productivity growth in the U.S. farm sector over the 1948-2004 period, and estimates of the growth and relative levels of productivity across the States for the period 1960-2004. Note that this data series has been revised with this release (see the complete documentation for details, or go to the data tables).

The level of farm output in 2004 was 167 percent above its level in 1948 for an average annual rate of growth of 1.74 percent. Input use actually declined in aggregate (labor has been departing the sector and land use has declined slightly, while capital influx has been modest), so the positive growth in farm sector output is wholly due to productivity growth. This contrasts with a 3.7-percent annual output increase in the private nonfarm sector, with productivity growth accounting for a little more than a third of the economic growth. But what exactly is productivity?

Single-factor measures of productivity, such as corn production per acre (yield or land productivity) or per hour of labor (labor productivity), have been used for many years because the underlying data are often easily available. While useful, such measures can also mislead. For example, yields could increase simply because farmers are adding more of other inputs, such as chemicals, labor, or machinery, to their land base. USDA produces measures of total factor productivity, taking account of the use of all inputs to the production process.

Tables in xls.