‘Life in the Age of Clinton’
The position of White House chief of staff is again being discussed (e.g., the “Honest Broker” article, Nov. 21). The appointee to this position has more public exposure and more apparent power than the vice president. Why not give the functions of chief of staff to the vice president? It would bring the vice president “into the loop” and provide contacts, information and administrative experience, which would be invaluable in the event of succession to the presidency. Problems relating to the chief of staff position during the past 40 years would have been obviated if the vice president had held that function.
JOSEPH H. BREUR
North Hollywood
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
