There are two problem areas in the Executive branch that can be resolved as one, by major departures from past practices. Throughout much of our history, the Vice President (VP) has been treated as a fifth wheel of the Presidential wagon. Yet starting in the 1950s, the President has deemed it necessary to appoint, and delegate great powers to, a Chief of Staff (CoS). A compelling question stands forth, as to why these two positions should not be one.

The Constitution provides that "The Vice President .... shall be President of the Senate ....". It also provides for a President Pro Tempore, to substitute for the VP in that roll, when there are reasons for his absence. Until or unless the duties of the President must devolve on him, the VP has no prescribed or essential responsibilities. The President can use him as he sees fit. Usually that has been in ceremonial and other non-essential roles. These other assignments appear to have demonstrated that the VP can readily be spared from the Senate (except in those rare instances when his tie-breaking vote may be required).

These utilizations of the VP do not serve to keep him thoroughly apprised, of the innermost workings of the Presidency. In the past 47 years, the nation has been faced with the devolvement (or threatened devolvement) of the President's duties on the VP. These occurred as a result of death, heart attack, assassination, resignation, attempted assassination, and surgeries. The nation took action to prescribe the causes and means for the VP to assume temporarily, or for the remainder of the term, the position of the President. This was done by the adoption of Amendment Article XXV to the Constitution in 1967.

However, little or nothing has been done to require that a best (or at least a fully) qualified person is selected to be VP. In the 1988 election the future President chose his VP for political and personal reasons. The public generally questioned the suitability of his choice "to be a heart beat away from the Presidency." Sure enough mid-way through the term a heart symptom caused a public scare. Had the President placed the VP, where he might experience the greatest exposure to the Presidency? No! The position of CoS, at the right hand of the throne, was reserved for a political appointee.

How did this political appointee reward this trust? He snubbed his nose repeatedly, at the public that did not elect him, by misusing his accouterments of office. Unfortunately there is considerable precedent for his misconduct. Dating back to the 1950s we have had scandals associated with the CoS position.

We can resolve our two problems as one by a one-two punch. First, we require that nominations for VP be based on qualifications to ascend to the Presidency. Second the VP should fill the position of CoS.

How do we cause the political parties, and the Presidential nominees, not to continue the practice of choosing running mates based on political expediency? That question was answered in Responsibility #3, by the proposed changes to the election process. Now lets take that proposal a step further.

In the unamended Constitution, there was no provision for running mates, or separate votes for President and VP. Let us to a degree revert to that arrangement. Lets change the process proposed in the earlier essay, to combine the nominating of President and VP. At the State screenings only one slate of four would be established, all being nominated for President. From the counts of the State slates, the U. S. Senate would determine a single slate of six nominees.

From election day results, the winner would be President. The new President would be privileged, and required, to select his VP from the other 5 finalists. The CoS position would be prescribed for the VP. Therewith, the President can be entrusted to ensure that the VP is ready, on a moments notice, to assume the Presidency, without any threat to the well being of the nation. With the CoS experience, the nation will have a much better qualified VP aspiring to the Presidency. An elected CoS, who looks forward to running for the Presidency, is unlikely to risk conduct that would embarrass the Executive branch.

As a further refinement, coincident with the proposed changes to the election process, let us at long last put aside the passe electoral college system. Each vote would then indeed be one person, one vote in the election of the President. As a part of the constitutional amendment that would be required to implement this change, it is suggested that the Senate still have a role in the confirmation of the election results. In the interest of precluding unnecessary expense in the case of close elections, the Congress should define the vote margin that would constitute a tie in order to preclude demands for large scale recounts.

In election process shortcomings nos. 16 and 17 (see Responsibility #2), we addressed the continuous campaigning of the President and the VP. We lamented the fact that the resources, powers, functions, speeches, and travel of their positions were used to assure the reelection of their party's ticket time after time after time. This is also often true of their appointed cabinet, and other Executive agencies', officials.

If we could delete partisan politics from travel and speeches, how much taxpayer money could we save, or divert to legitimate needs of the country? If we could purge nonproductive speeches and travel from the Executive branch (particularly with the end of the cold war), could we dispose of one or both Boeing 747s (Air Force One and Two)? How much of the pomp and ceremony, on the White House lawn, is necessary for the foreign relations of a democratic republic? How many of the White House grandiose functions (particularly the transposed Hollywood fetes of the 1980s) are appropriate to a non-aristocratic America?

How much more could be accomplished to resolve our country's grievous problems if the Administration's nose were held to the grindstone? In a USA that has mortgaged its grandchildren, these and other questions on the need for oversight on the operations and control of expenses of the Presidency need be explored.