As tempting as it is to ignore an argument beginning with garbage like "Laughable bullshit," you immediately contradict yourself by claiming police states are systemic problems and then arguing for a systemic change moving in that direction. You mention "spying without just cause" without addressing the fact that the ACLU considers forced national identity systems to be profound privacy issues.
If you had a real counterproposal involving an achievable goal, such as legislation strengthening protections of existing national ID systems, making them cheaper or more accessible to encourage adoption, or anything at all other than a national forced ID system, it would be a more credible argument. Several states have already passed laws prohibiting compliance with such systems. It's never going to happen without decades of brutal legal battles in a country that can barely pass a budget from year to year.
In other words, the "laughable bullshit" is in fact the default policy and people with your convictions are going to have to be much more convincing of the utility you claim it will bring, which is arguable at best. You say my efforts are wasted, but I don't recall having made any, and here we are with no national ID, and a strong bipartisan opposition to the idea.
I'm not going to bother with the breathless whataboutism, because it's completely irrelevant. The plain fact is that citizens on average don't need to identify themselves to the federal government that often, and those who do already have avenues through which to do it. That's a lot of inertia, and your arguments have so far been insufficiently compelling to overcome it. I remain confident that these conditions will persist.