Let's hope it never happens. But the precedent is there, a part of recent history, for the possibility that our president might at some point need to be replaced.
Come November, either Barack Obama will be re-elected as the president of the United States, or presumed-nominee Mitt Romney will be elected for a first term presidential role.
Their successors, if it came down to it, would be either Joe Biden or Paul Ryan.
President Joe Biden. President Paul Ryan. How do those monikers sound to you?
If you've been around long enough, you remember Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, stepping in for then-President John Kennedy when in 1963 Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. And you certainly remember - or at least you've heard about - Vice President Gerald Ford taking the reins from then-President Richard Nixon in 1974 after the Watergate scandal brought Nixon's career to an end.
Anything can happen, and our American Constitution states the vice president is the first person to take command if the need arises.
This week, for the first time in the presidential campaign, we had some real focus on the vice presidency, often a position relegated to page three of the newspaper, to the second block of the newscast.
Mitt Romney named Ryan, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin, as his running mate. The weekend choice was the top story for several days on many media outlets.
Though young, Ryan is a Washington, D.C. veteran of politics, serving his home state for nearly 13 years. Elected at the age of 29, Ryan is chair of the powerful House Budget Committee. At a time when the economy ranks as the number one issue of concern in our country, Ryan has proposed privatizing Social Security, and replacing Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55.
Meanwhile, Biden made headlines with some controversial comments at a speech in Virginia, as he told supporters the Republican presidential candidates and GOP lawmakers would put them "back in chains." Hundreds of black people were in attendance for the speech.
President Obama felt the need to defend Biden, saying the vice president's remarks referred to what would happen if Republicans succeeded in getting rid of restraints on financial institutions.
As vice president, Biden held the oversight role for infrastructure spending from the Obama economic stimulus package. He also negotiated bipartisan deals with Congress that resulted in the Tax Relief Act of 2010.
Both men have strong credentials. Both have strong ties to the economy, yet look in different directions in moving forward.
If it happened, if one was suddenly swept into the role of the presidency, with whom would you feel a greater comfort level? If Paul Ryan or Joe Biden became the president, who would be the better choice?
Let us know in your comments. Then vote in our poll below.
paying for a tutor for th eir child. Being ripped off by illegals in emergency rooms for colds, paying for food with our tax money and taking jobs from legal residents and by doing so suppressing wages. They are part of the reason for the decline in the middle class.
People are now sick with this illegal nexus between politicians and public unions. We are sick of paying more and more taxes so that public employees can continue enjoying these insane perks. Movement has started, just wait a few years. This thuggery will not last forever. @Perez - Average salary 23K/year? Are you on dope? Have you actually checked the numbers? Average salary of a police officer is $130K in Milpitas. And that is the base salary. When you add insane perks and unsustainable pensions, it comes out to be $300K/year. Keep blaming wall street to divert attention from the real problem on the ground.
Their jobs.
In the last 10 year, average income of middle class has dropped 10%. In the same period, public employee salary and perks have gone up 80%. Just check yourself. Cities are being forced in bankruptcy and local communities being destroyed because these people won't let go off these insane perks. When economy is good, we don't mind paying, but we are in a huge recession right now. But these thugs still wants same perks. They don't care about us, they just care about the money. If they can't respect us, we can't respect them.
By the way, I am not against public employees who make 60-70K a year. The culprits are upper management (who already make over 200K, they should not get these insane perks) and safety employees who are paid way too much and then they retire at 50 with 90% salary - spiked up using insane perks-- (that then goes up 3%).
Greedy Corporations and CEOS are the problem. Recently approved tax breaks for corporations are costing taxpayers a billion dollars a year for the next five years, according to the Legislative Analyst. Meanwhile, bankers and Wall Street bosses even now are enjoying raises and bonuses while the economy continues to stagnate around them. The Federal Reserve this month published its Survey of Consumer Finances, which showed that the median American family’s net worth fell almost 40 percent in the three years ending in 2010, and real income fell 7.7 percent. At the same time, CEO pay rose 5 percent between 2010 and 2011 — in some cases it went up 500 percent (according to a survey by the New York Times).
Again, citing the annual report, “Statewide every dollar paid to a CalPERS beneficiary results in $2.26 in economic activity, which we call a multiplier of 2.26 for every dollar. In 2010, CalPers paid nearly $12 billion in benefits to more than 500,000 retirees, beneficiaries, and survivors. Approximately 86 percent of those annuitants live in California and spend their monthly income in the state’s 58 counties. The average CalPERS retiree leaves public service at 60 years old after more than 20 years on the job. The average monthly CalPERS benefit in California in 2010 was $2,236 based on this study of 431,000 beneficiaries. CalPERS annuitants live in all of California’s 58 counties.” Continuing, “State retirees receiving CalPERS payments generated $1 billion State and local taxes, including almost $620 million in property and sales taxes. Each dollar contributed by state and local governments to the CalPERS Fund is invested, grows over time and when paid to beneficiaries in 2010 generated $10.79 of activity in the California economy; Central Coast (4 counties) $9.8 million.
FACT: only 2% of Cal PERS retirees and 2.2% of CalSTRS retirees have pensions above $100,000. FACT: the entire cost of pensions for state workers in 2011 was $3.5 billion, barely 4% out of an $85 billion budget. FACT: California pays less as a percentage of payroll for pensions today than it did in 1980. The majority of State employees also have college degrees and begins working for the State when they’re 29 or 30 years old, by the time they’re in their mid-50s they have 25 years of service. At age 55, State employees take home the number of years of service multiplied by a factor of 2, WOW; they get a whopping 50 PERCENT of their pay, not full salaries.
A ground up movement: Through taxpayer financed school voucher programs, Protestant fundamentalist textbooks are being authorized by evangelical dominated school boards that adhere to creationist nonscience while exhibiting hostility toward agnostics, atheists, other religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Shintoism, traditional African and Native American religions and even non-evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. Textbooks and beliefs that exclude things like evolution and teach abstinence-only have already resulted in communities with the highest rates of teen pregnancies and lawmakers like Todd Akin sitting on the House Science Committee, and Paul "forcible rape" Ryan.
@Cathy, I am talking about 60-70K salary not pension.