IN 2005 Congress considered an emergency spending bill that designated $81 billion for military spending and Asian tsunami relief. It passed easily. A politician would have to be mighty confident to vote against humanitarian aid and supporting the troops.
But complaints have steadily grown about a law that came with the spending bill. The Real ID Act of 2005 established national standards for driving licences. By 2008, it said, every state would have to make sure its licences included "physical security features" and "a common machine readable technology". A state would be responsible for verifying that anyone applying for licences is in America legally. Only licences that met the new standards would be accepted by the federal government. An American who wanted to fly commercially, or do anything else for which he needed to identify himself, would end up in a queue at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The idea was to make life harder for would-be terrorists. But the scheme will certainly make life harder for the states. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reckons that implementing the changes will cost states up to $14.6 billion, with individuals on the line for an additional $8.5 billion. And the federal government plans to meet only a fraction of the cost.
Critics also argue that the new licences will amount to national identification cards and will contain ton much information about the bearer. Immigration advocates say that the Real ID Act unfairly targets illegal immigrants. And from a security standpoint the act raises as many fears as it allays. Licences that meet the revised standards would be rich of sensitive data. They might prove irresistibly tempting to identity thieves and marketing firms.
On January 25th Maine became the first state to oppose the Act. Its legislature passed a resolution refusing to implement the Real ID Act with nearly unanimous support. On March 8th, Idaho approved a similar bill. Two dozen other states have measures pending that question the act or oppose it outright.
On March 1st the DHS issued guidelines for implementing the Real ID Act that manage to ignore most of these objections. The guidelines allow states a bit more time to implement the act. But they give no quarter on the expensive physical security features and suggest that states deal with privacy concerns on their own. And as the National Governors Association promptly noted, they "do nothing" to address the cost to states.
Which of the following consequence might be caused by the 2005 emergency spending bill