On Reducing the Size of Government 275 Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in government. In just 6 months it has saved the taxpayers more than $ 2 billion, and it's only getting started. Together we've begun to mobilize the private sector, not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs, but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America's social problems. Our citizens feel they've lost control of even the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government, such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection. And they're right. A maze of interlocking jurisdictions and levels of f confronts average citizens in trying to solve even the simplest of problems. They don't know where to turn for answers, who to hold accountable, who to praise, who to blame, who to vote for or against. The main reason for this is the overpowering growth of Federal grants-in-aid programs during the past few decades. In 1960 the Federal Government had 132 categorical grant programs, costing $ 7 billion. When I took office, there were approximately 500, costing nearly a hundred billion dollars – 13 programs for energy, 36 for pollution control, 66 for social services, 90 for education. And here in the Congress, it takes at least 166 committees just to try to keep track of them. You know and I know that neither the President nor the ... government Congress can properly oversee this jungle of grants-in-aid: indeed, the growth of these grants has led to the distortion in the vital functions of government. As one Democratic Governor put it recently: The National Government should be worrying about "arms control, not potholes." The growth in these Federal programs has-in the words of one intergovernmental commission-made the Federal Government "more pervasive, more intrusive, more unmanageable, more inef- fective and costly, and above all, more [un] accountable. "Let's solve this problem with a single, bold stroke: the return of some $ 47 bil- lion in Federal programs to State and local government, together with the means to finance them and a transition period of nearly 40 years to avoid unnecessary disruption.. In a single stroke we will be accomplishing a realignment that will end cumbersome [unmanageable] administration and spiraling costs at the Federal level while we ensure these programs will be 64 Why did Reagan want to transfer many programs to the state level of government? How did Reagan hope to help create a better government through smaller government? What role did volunteers play in this task? Do you agree with Reagan's philosophy about a smaller federal government? Why or why not?