I'm pro national ID. The usual reasons apply, but also another reason, no one has mentioned -- standardization. This also addresses fraud.
As mentioned current ID can be and are faked. They are also built from other forms of ID that can be faked. But faking comes with a risk. It's a way to identify criminals if they are caught doing it because faking, unlike not having any ID at all, is an overt crime.
Standardization can make it cheaper and more secure. I think the demand to make it perfectly secure is using the perfect as the enemy of the good. I also think that a standard national ID gives us a target to meet the defects, in the same way we've altered our currency to make it more difficult to counterfeit.
Expense is an issue. However, I think that, like social security numbers, a national ID would quickly be adopted for other purposes -- for example, your ID can be linked to information about driving or voting. These add value and eliminate other, overlapping forms of identification. One ID, a variable data base behind it. That's the kind of benefit that would be needed to sell it.
Linking to a data base also helps fight fraud. I expect it introduces some errors as well. Still, there is an advantage to users of a high-profile, meaningful system -- we are more likely to keep their feet to the fire.
One of the best objections revolves around misuse. This too is likely to mean legislative fights. After all, something as innocuous as the census has opponents that decry the invasion of privacy. So the national ID starts out as pseudo-voluntary and becomes so useful that it is adopted by choice until it finally is adopted by law.
