• Home
  • Readers’ Favorite Awards 5-Star Review to Devolution of Power

Readers’ Favorite Awards 5-Star Review to Devolution of Power

Frank Mutuma, Readers' Choice

May 2024

Readers’ Favorite Awards 5-Star Review to Devolution of Power

For immediate release:

Author’s new book receives a warm literary welcome.

Readers’ Favorite announces the review of the Non-Fiction – Gov/Politics book “Devolution of Power” by William L. Kovacs, currently available at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1960499793.

Readers’ Favorite is one of the largest book review and award contest sites on the Internet. They have earned the respect of renowned publishers like Random House, Simon & Schuster, and Harper Collins, and have received the “Best Websites for Authors” and “Honoring Excellence” awards from the Association of Independent Authors. They are also fully accredited by the BBB (A+ rating), which is a rarity among Book Review and Book Award Contest companies.

“Reviewed By Frank Mutuma for Readers’ Favorite

Devolution of Power by William L. Kovacs discusses the state of affairs in America. The country is not united, and many things are not working. But how did we get here? Many people working for the federal government are not loyal to the Constitution, and they do not serve the institutions that employ them, hence compromising the separation of powers. It is the people who are the losers when there are no checks and balances. Things have been made worse by the two parties, which has made the people’s representatives more loyal to the party than to performing their duties. The parties have also made it very difficult for other parties to vote in elections. The delegation of power to the states is a step in the right direction. The citizens also have the duty and extraordinary power to effect change through the ballot, which is like a peaceful revolution.

Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic by William L. Kovacs is a must-read! I was instantly captured by the thought-provoking concepts discussed, such as the insights offered on the climate change issue that is at the top of the agenda among many governments. Is it truly about the climate or about controlling the people? Issues such as unbridled immigration and the reluctance of those in power should act as an eye-opener. I loved how William articulated the issues, providing relevant examples and statistics, which made the book very effective in passing on the intended message. This was an incredible read, and I look forward to reading something else about governance by this author.”

You can learn more about William L. Kovacs and “Devolution of Power” at https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/devolution-of-power where you can read reviews and the author’s biography, as well as connect with the author directly or through their website and social media pages.

Readers’ Favorite LLC
Media Relations
Louisville, KY 40202
[email protected]

  • Home
  • Fix a Government Too Big to Govern: Devolve Power to States

Fix a Government Too Big to Govern: Devolve Power to States

William L. Kovacs

October 2023

Fix a Government Too Big to Govern: Devolve Power to States

For the last several weeks, Congress has been unable to function because of its inability to elect a Speaker of the House of Representatives. Before that, it was an inability to deal with the debt ceiling and the nation’s massive national debt that has been growing for decades. The U.S. Southern border had been opened to drug cartels and terrorists for years. We are depleting our military arsenal, draining our Strategic Petroleum Reserves for political gain at the ballot box, and now the U.S. faces the possibility of wars in Ukraine, Israel, and perhaps the entire Middle East and Taiwan. Most challenging to the U.S. is the formation of a new form of Axis power consisting of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and likely some associate members designated as terrorists. Our national defense is so distracted it cannot even identify a Chinese spy balloon traveling over all its top-security military bases.

The list of potential disasters facing the federal government seems to be never-ending.  Why does our federal government continuously have so many problems? The answer might be more obvious than most think. Our political friends in Washington have created a government that is too big to govern. By trying to control every aspect of life, the federal government is putting the entire nation at risk. Perhaps it’s time to devolve many of the domestic powers the federal government accumulated over the last century to the states. Call it a power-sharing arrangement to better manage the nation.

Taking on this topic will be a series of articles that discuss how the federal government has been allowed to grow without any constitutional changes and how the federal government can shrink the monster it has created. But first, is the devolution of power a path worth considering?

While I would argue yes, there are likely very, very few elected officials that would ever support losing the control over citizens they fought so hard to acquire. This first article will explain what devolution of power is and its benefits.

Our Constitution is structured to foster a strong economy while protecting the nation from harm. Until the Great Depression, the respective states had a major role in the domestic affairs of the nation. Unfortunately, the massive accumulation of federal regulatory and taxing power transformed the respective states into mere administrators of federal rule. If the federal government does not allow the country to return to a viable structure of federalism in which states have a serious role in shaping domestic policy, the U.S. is likely to join the many nations that now hold the status of a “once-great power.”

What is Devolution of Power?

Devolution transfers substantial power and authority from the federal government to state and local governments. Devolution differs from decentralization, which merely transfers certain functions from a central location to several locations. Decentralization would be a relevant concept if the federal government were to move its workforce out of Washington, DC.

Making devolution work and its benefits.

For devolution to work, the federal powers transferred to the states must include all powers necessary to implement the policies transferred, including decision-making authority, managerial control of the legal framework for the policies to be managed, and the ability to tax and spend. After the transfer of power to the states, the federal government would cease regulating those activities. .

By assuming such powers, the states will have the capacity to implement all of the programs transferred to them by the federal government or to eliminate current federal domestic programs unneeded or unwanted by its citizens. Moreover, by clearly identifying the powers transferred, devolution allows the nation to operate as a unitary country that legally divides the management of issues between the federal government and the states for efficiency and practical implementation of programs sought by citizens of the respective states. Devolving federal power to the states brings the domestic programs of government closer to the people it serves. It also eliminates an entire level of bureaucracy.

Greater program efficiency.

The programs administered by a state will be smaller in size and administered by government that is closer to those it serves. By having more knowledge of the area and people served, the government administering the programs will be better able to achieve program goals. Greater efficiency results in more government accountability.

Enhances democracy.

In smaller communities, there is less bureaucracy. Participating in decision-making and running for office is more accessible and less costly. Greater participation in democracy builds trust in government. People of ordinary means can seek elected office.

Fosters innovation and trust.

With less bureaucracy to block innovative ideas, there is more focus on solutions and getting the job done than protecting the status quo. Since citizens are more trusting of and familiar with state and local government, they can better evaluate how the government manages the issues of most concern to them, such as health care, crime, taxes, and the economy. Significant citizen participation cannot happen when a distant central government lacks knowledge of the local issues yet controls the process for the resolution of disputes.

Limits bureaucratic power.

Sharing power between different authorities at different levels of government is an effective mechanism for deterring the ability of any government to become too powerful.

Assists with resolving conflicts.

Solutions are easier to achieve when there is an ability of citizens and government to exchange views.

Denationalizes controversial issues.

National governments nationalize all matters before them, from abortion and education to local permitting and economic development issues. When the federal government deals with state and local issues, the national lobbying organizations control the outcome to fit their national objective. For example, it is the national environmental groups that block oil drilling and mineral mining in Alaska, not Alaskans. The same is true for oil and gas pipelines and forest management. National environmental groups control local development across the nation by capturing the federal bureaucracy. By allowing states to control controversial issues, each state will take a different path that is usually more satisfactory to the locals than the advocacy of the national groups. This approach allows citizens the ultimate right to live as they want and to vote with their feet.

By having fewer responsibilities, the federal government will be able to focus on the nation’s defense and national issues. The states can very competently manage most domestic matters. Only through a system of genuine federalism can the U.S. prevent authoritarian rule, a civil war, or a wholly weakened, unstable nation in a world of enemies.

The states can’t afford the programs is a myth.

That answer as to what level of government can afford what will come very soon as the federal government is crushed by its own debt and the surge in interest payments on it. The federal government funds well over 1,000 state programs. Keep in mind, however, that many of these programs are the brainchild of the federal government, and the state is given grants to implement them. Since the federal grants rarely cover the state’s costs, the states end up subsidizing the federal programs.

Most significant, however, is that many unwanted federal programs displace programs important to the states. Also, every dollar the federal government pays the states to implement federal programs is a dollar the federal government took from a citizen of the states. Washington merely collects the tax dollars and returns them to the states, minus its commission.

The question is not who is going to pay. The taxpayer always pays. The real question is, who decides and implements the programs that citizens must pay for?


William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]






  • Home
  • The Kakistocracy Must Devolve Power to the States

The Kakistocracy Must Devolve Power to the States

William L. Kovacs

August 2019

The Kakistocracy Must Devolve Power to the States

Since the inception of the New Deal programs in the 1930s to address the Great Depression, the federal government has continued to impose its will on more and more aspects of American society.  It has accomplished this power grab by expanding interpretations of the Constitution’s spending and welfare clauses and using its taxing powers to raise the amounts needed to “incentivize” states to adopt and implement federal policy through grants. While the federal government made grants to the states starting in 1900, those grants generally subsidized existing state programs. From the 1960s forward, Congress enacted many new programs, and it needed help to implement them. It found a creative solution – raise taxes to generate sufficient funds to provide grants to states as an incentive for the states to implement federal programs. There were around 132 state grant programs in 1960. Today they number over 1,300. 

Due to a variety of factors, the “heady” decades of federal aggrandizement of power will likely be coming to an end. The states are resisting implementation of specific federal programs they do not want to administer or are not fairly compensated for administering. At the same time, the federal government has amassed debt of almost $22 trillion and annual trillion-dollar budget deficits, thereby making continuing payment for these programs questionable.

Without compromise, capitulation or the continuous printing of money, it is difficult to imagine the current federal-state relationship continuing. If there is a break-up what will happen to the federal programs? What will happen to the federal-state relationship? Could a breakup be the start of a shrinking federal government that devolves powers to the states?

States Returning or Refusing to Implement Federal Programs Has Already Started

The warning sign of state frustration with implementing federal programs is the conflict over “sanctuary states and cities.” Over three-hundred states or cities have refused to enforce federal immigration laws requiring the deportation of unauthorized immigrants, even though they have accepted federal grant monies for law enforcement and other local activities.

The President is frustrated with these challenges to federal authority; however, there is little that can be done other than eliminating the grants. The limits arise under several U.S. Supreme Court decisions which hold that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from commandeering states to implement federal law. Moreover, even when the federal government conditions receipt of federal monies on the implementation specific federal programs, the grant monies can only be withheld when a state or local government agrees to a contract provision that is clear enough for it to decide whether or not to accept the funds. The Supreme Court further limits federal control over grants to state or local governments by forbidding funding conditions in grants so coercive that the circumstances amount to a “gun to the head” situation.

In addition to the outright refusal of states to implement federal programs, not of their liking, there are federal programs, e.g., environmental, that states want to implement but the federal grants only cover a fraction of the cost of implementation. According to a 2016 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Growing Burden of Unfunded EPA Mandates on States, https://www.uschamber.com/report/the-growing-burden-unfunded-epa-mandates-the-states the states implement approximately 96% of federally delegated environmental programs but only receive 28% of the cost of implementation.

Complicating the debate will be the long-festering issue of state grant inequality. Naturally, that while every federal program is paid for with the tax dollars citizens send to Washington, not every state receives a dollar for dollar return on the money its citizens send to Washington. According to a March 8, 2017 article in The Atlantic, “Which States Are Givers, and Which States Are Takers”, the amount of money given the respective states varies dramatically. South Carolina receives $7.87 for every dollar its citizens send to Washington in taxes. Other states are not so lucky. Fourteen states receive less grant money than they send to Washington in taxes, i.e., Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and California. Then comes the realization that off the top of every dollar states send to Washington, the federal government takes a percentage cut of the state tax money for having its bureaucrats oversee a state grant program the federal government wants to be implemented.

In each situation, (state not wanting to implement a federal program; the federal government under-compensating the state for its efforts; or the unequal distribution of federal funds), tensions arise over the implementation of these federal programs. These tensions place federal programs at risk of the state refusal to administer them.

The Feds Might Also Pull the Funding Plug

According to a May 7, 2018 study by the Congressional Research Service, Federal Grants to State and Local Government: A Historical Perspective on Contemporary Issue, the federal government is expected to provide state and local governments about $728 billion in grants in FY 2018. More than half of the monies ($400 billion) goes to health care (Medicaid), and the rest to highways, environment, child nutrition, disaster relief, tenant rental assistance, education for the disadvantaged, children’s health insurance, and urban mass transit, among other programs.

These federal funds comprise 1,319 grants, and according to the Tax Foundation, the awards represent between 26% – 49% of state spending, depending on the state. For example, federal funds to Indiana represent 35% of its total state spending. Federal grants to Texas represent 40% of its state’s spending. Federal grants to Virginia only represent 27% of its state’s spending. The amount of these grants has more than doubled from FY 2000, going from $286 billion in FY 2000 to $728 billion in FY 2018.

To the federal government, these grants represent about 18% of its $4 trillion annual budget. The present federal debt carries interest payments of around $250 billion annually. The historically low-interest rates between 2009 – 2107 kept interest payments manageable, but still consuming about 7.4% of the federal budget. The Office of Management and Budget is projecting that interest rates will rise to around 3.6% by 2028, consuming 12.2% of the federal budget and drain the treasury by $761 billion annually, an amount that exceeds the total amount of grants made to states. This deficiency means the federal government will need to find an additional $511 billion annually by 2028 to service the increased debt or it will need to find other budget reductions such as state program grants, to remain at the same fiscal position as today.

Could This Be the Start of Devolution?

The conflicting trends of states not wanting to implement specific federal programs and the federal government not having sufficient money to fully compensate the states for implementing them will start the debate over which programs must be administered and by whom? Therefore, while the federal government becomes more irritated at states that resist administering federal programs, the states that receive less federal funding than needed to implement federal programs or receive an inequitable return on their tax dollars sent to Washington, also become irritated with federal management of the grant programs.

This situation will force states to decide what programs they genuinely want to administer. States will have to balance the impact on their budgets of the loss of federal funds against the cost to the state of administering the federal programs. It might seem that the loss of any federal funds would be a substantial budget impact on states; however, that may not be the case since many states supplement the federal grants with state funds to achieve full implementation of specific federal programs or send more money to Washington than it receives back in grants. 

On the federal side of the equation, the federal government is forced to determine what are its priority programs and to recognize it will have to provide sufficient amounts of money to incentivize full state implementation of priority programs. The selection of priority programs means the federal government, due to budget deficits, will have to reduce or eliminate some state program grants.

Eventually, however, the federal government will have to stop printing money it does not have. State resistance will merely give the federal government a reason to revise or defund certain state grant programs. Once this occurs, the devolutionary process will play out, which means the federal government will stop expanding its authority through incentives to states to implement federal programs. Conversely, States will decide which federal programs they want to continue. In many cases, the states will pay for current federal programs they wish to administer with the dollars saved by eliminating the cost of administering unwanted federal programs and by keeping the tax dollars of their citizens in their state, rather than sending the dollars to Washington for redistribution.

As with any Hobson’s Choice, there is no choice at all. The federal government will shrink, and the states will implement the programs wanted by the citizens of their state. This devolutionary process will restore sovereignty to the states while shrinking federal power to that given the federal government by our Constitution.

Follow Bill  @WilliamLKovacs  

  • Home
  • State Legislatures: Last Guardians of the Republic

State Legislatures: Last Guardians of the Republic

William L. Kovacs

July 2019

State Legislatures: Last Guardians of the Republic

The federal government is unable to control its printing of money. The nation has accumulated massive debt.  Wars have continued for years without Congress declaring war. Congress ignores pressing issues such as immigration and health care and fails to enact budgets or appropriations regularly. We need to ask ourselves; can we stop the runaway train before it crashes causing significant injury to the nation?

Our Constitution has many braking systems in place to stop a runaway government, but so far, they have all failed. Primarily, our system of checks and balances which was devised to ensure each branch of government operated as a check on the other branches. As our elected representatives give more and more loyalty to the political party, they are a member of, than to the institution in which they serve, the power of the institution of Congress dwindles leaving only the power of the political party to check the overreaching activities of the opposing political party.

The Executive branch aggressively seeks to increase its power through Executive Order and the issuance of regulations to carry out the intent of the Executive rather than the intent of Congress, thus further diminishing the powers of Congress and the checks and balances so necessary restraining the powers of the federal government.

Our courts affirm the delegation of legislative authority from Congress to the Executive through the passage of broad and vague laws that require the Executive to fill in the legislative blanks. Moreover, when the blanks are filled in, the courts give deference to agency action, viewing the agency as the expert, notwithstanding congressional intent.

The other mechanisms in our Constitution to control a massive federal government have also failed. Every year Congress has the opportunity to control spending through appropriations, yet every year appropriations and our debt increase. In 1970 our debt was $371 billion; in 1982 our national debt reached $1 trillion for the first time, and today we are reaching twenty-two trillion dollars. It is projected that we will add a trillion dollars to our debt every year going forward. If Congress can’t utilize its absolute control over spending to keep the nation living within our means, and the Executive refuses to veto expenditures we cannot afford, then the checks and balances established by our Constitution are useless.

Another possibility is for the people of this nation to control Congress through a common activity that can regularly be utilized – voting. If our present government is failing us, we can change our entire government over six years. Our founders provided us a legal form of peaceful revolution at the ballot box. Unfortunately, it appears that the citizens of this nation are just as split and angry as the politicians in Congress, thus leaving us without the ability to control the federal government.

Fortunately, there is one final option, but one never utilized, to put the brakes on an out-of-control federal government. Article V of the Constitution places such power in the hands of the fifty state legislatures. Under Article V, upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, (34), Congress must call a Convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. The Amendments adopted by the Convention become part of our Constitution if ratified by three-fourths, (38), of the state legislatures or by Conventions of three – fourths of the several states. The method or ratification is up to Congress, and that is the only power Congress has if thirty-four states submit similar applications to Congress.

The state convention process cannot be denied, vetoed or regulated by Congress or the governors of the respective states. The selected delegates would control the Convention. While there have been over four hundred applications to call a Convention of the States, there has not been a sufficient number of states making the same or similar applications.

The point of raising the Article V, Constitutional Amendment process, is not to promote a Convention of the States, a group of the same name is actively pursuing that. My point is to remind all members of the state legislatures that they have taken an Oath that binds them to support the Constitution of the United States as currently constituted. If the state legislatures believe that the massive, debt-ridden, federal government that presently runs our nation is not operating it within the framework of our Constitution, the state legislatures must act for the citizens of the country.

While members of these state legislature may view their duties solely as state functions, the oath they have taken to the Constitution obligates them to ensure the federal government works according to the Constitution. If the federal government operates outside of the Constitution, the state legislatures have been given the constitutional responsibility to save the Republic with a Convention that hopefully restores common sense to the operations of our federal government. If a consensus on Amendments comes out of the convention, the convention delegates will have to persuade the American people and their state legislatures that controlling the federal government is essential to the nation. Reaching a consensus on one or more Constitutional Amendments to control the federal government will be our best chance to reflect not only what we want the country to be, but it will also tell us if we can save the nation.

Follow Bill @WilliamLKovacs  

  • Home
  • Restructuring Must Include Everything the Kakistocrats Manage

Restructuring Must Include Everything the Kakistocrats Manage

William L. Kovacs

June 2019

Restructuring Must Include Everything the Kakistocrats Manage

Complex societies collapse. Massively indebted nations collapse.  Countries with their military deployed throughout the world collapse.  Highly regulated states collapse. Governments that are torn by distrust and hatred between various groups of its people collapse. The United States is all of these risks combined and the kakistocrats, contently sitting on the bubble, claim they are addressing these risks.

The kakistocrats delude themselves that it can’t happen here.  It has happened to every major empire in the history of the world. Sometimes the collapse happens by war. Other times, by nature. Sometimes it happens by political decisions made to harm an opponent. As long as these many risks continue to linger our country is exposed to significant harm that could last decades or centuries.

We need only to look at the history books to appreciate this lesson. The world power centers of the 16th century include the Aztec, Inca, Ottoman, Persian, Mogul, and Ming empires. In the 1750s the European Colonial empires included the Portuguese, French, Spanish, British, Danish and Russian empires. In the 19th century, the great empires were French, Spanish, Austrian, and Russian. All these countries were diminished by war, excessive centralization, debt, or a failure to adapt technology to changing times.

Like all empires before us, our society will live with the risk perhaps for decades but then some sudden event will force dramatic change, and the kakistocracy will be helpless to address it.  At that point, the entire society goes into the abyss.  Once in the abyss, it can take centuries to reemerge from the darkness as chaos rules.

To quote the introduction of my book, “There are times in the history of nations when the citizens of the nation need to act before those entrusted with the control and resources of the nation cause it harm.”  Now is the time for action!  We must immediately demand that the kakistocrats act as fiduciaries, not politicians, and address the structural risks to our nation. 

What would be sufficient structural reform of our government?  Everything must be analyzed as if they were putting a puzzle together: taxes, spending, the sale of assets, elimination of excessive laws and regulations and the devolution of programs to the states when the states are more capable of implementing them than the federal government.  Entities facing systemic risks do this all the time. It is now time for the kakistocracy to do it for the nation. The federal government has undertaken successful but very limited, restructurings many times, e.g. the reorganization of the Penn Central Railroad into Conrail to preserve commerce in the eastern parts of the nation; reorganizing New York City and Chrysler Corporation to prevent bankruptcy and in 2009 the bailout and restructuring of the nation’s banking industry to prevent financial collapse.

It is now time to restructure a government that has not restrained itself since World War II. Massive amounts of debt and hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations are on the books, regulating everything from national defense and the conduct of war to the treatment of animals. The federal government owns thirty percent of the nation’s land and does not have anywhere near the cash needed even to maintain the structures it built, let alone develop more technologically advanced ones to compete in the world. Paying to sustain this massive structure is a printing press that prints dollars as long as it has ink.  We have a tax system that has been captured by special interests since the first time it was amended by Congress in 1918. 

Starting the reorganization begins with a simple question – What do we want our nation to look like in 10, 20, or even 50 years? If we continue on our present path, the view of the future is burdened with debt, centralization of government and conflict within society. If these issues remain unaddressed, we will not be a functioning nation for long. I assume not even the kakistocracy wants to face that bleak outcome, which is what we will get if we do nothing.

The restructuring process must all start with the federal government recognizing it is not capable of managing, and cannot afford, the massive government it has created. It must immediately identify essential programs and fund those programs to the extent of available revenues. If borrowing must occur, then it must only be for the essential programs.

Concurrent with prioritizing spending, Congress must review every program in the federal government and repeal all non-essential federal programs or devolve programs essential to the states to the states.

Next, the kakistocracy must compile a list of real assets (e.g., buildings, land, and mineral rights). Again, the assets should be prioritized, and only the assets needed for running the nation should be kept. Low priority assets should be sold, and the proceeds used to pay off the nation’s debt.

Every federal program that gives, grants, loans or subsidizes private entities should be quickly eliminated.

Even after completing this right-sizing trauma, the restructuring will only be just beginning. The kakistocracy will still need to address social security, reducing health care costs by twenty – five percent, and developing a tax system that eliminates complexity, unfairness and tax-avoidance schemes while collecting sufficient revenues to run the government. For suggestions on how to accomplish these changes see Part IV of my book.

Follow Bill @WilliamLKovacs