White House communications director to speak at progressive conference
President Obama meets with Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer and other aides in the Oval Office, May 13, 2011.
June 6th, 2011
11:45 AM ET
3 years ago

White House communications director to speak at progressive conference

Washington (CNN) - President Obama's top communications official is set to address the progressive Netroots Nation annual conference next week, another sign the White House is gearing up for the upcoming campaign and how seriously they take the online community.

Netroots Nation announced Monday that White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer will be their keynote speaker this year. The gathering of progressive activists and bloggers will hear an address from Pfeiffer which will also have question and answer session.

The conference is set to take place June 16th through June 19th in Minneapolis.

Other speakers slated on the agenda include: former White House environmental czar Van Jones, the new DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman, Obama campaign national field director Jeremy Bird, former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Minnesota officeholders Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Keith Ellison.


Filed under: Dan Pfeiffer • President Obama
soundoff (35 Responses)
  1. margie

    i am more scared of fascism than than of socialism or comunism i.e. wisconsin is looking pretty fascist with the anti-union policies being shoved down the throats of working people

    June 6, 2011 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  2. Sniffit

    "Sniffit – It was the current president that did a tax cut during the recession, not the prior."

    Yes, and for two reasons: (1) the rest of the Stimulus was actually helpful and it was the only way to get it passed and (2) with respect to extending Bush's tax cuts during the lame duck, that was the only way to get anything else done. Moreover, if you look at the tax cuts and incentives in the Stimulus, they were overwhelmingly not for the weatlhiest among us, but rather for those more in need and for businesses that were actually small (i.e., not giants like PriceWaterhouse that the GOP lumps in with small businesses solely because they have very few owners who report as an S-corp).

    "Take a look at the tax tables from 2000 and compare them to the tables from 2008...Seems like this was, in fact, a progressive tax cut, not just a cut for the wealthy.."

    You're so utterly wrong about the numbers and what they show about who got the lion's share of the benefit that it's not even close to funny...and your blatant misinformation is not appreciated. But hey, that's what we've come to expect. While everyone's at it,go ahead and Google up the tables that show the tax cuts enacted by Bush and the GOP in 2001 and 2003 are blatantly and insanely INEQUITABLE and were indisputably geared towards benefitting the wealthiest 2% of this country based on the GOP's trickle-down unicorn fart magical-thinking economic ideology. This isn't a matter of debate...it's MATH. And before you even start, this isn't a situation of "oh, well, of course it looks like the rich got more cuts because they make so much more in the first place, so it just LOOKS unfair." IT WAS INEQUITABLE...not equal and not egalitarian. THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE. It's all part of trying to shift them more weatlh on the backs of the middle-class and speed the descent into plutocracy. Furthermore, while everyone's happily Googling for facts about the Bush tax cuts, you can look up the tables that show, again indisputably, that those tax cuts are the single biggest contributing factor to the current national debt and deficit, followed by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The same graphs, which show very large/wide bands to represent the costs of the tax cuts and war activities, show that the Stimulus and other Obama initiatives are very thin, small bands running along the X-axis...and even more telling, show that if the Bush tax cuts and war spending were removed from the equation, we'd be running at almost or close to "even" right now and into the future.

    June 6, 2011 01:24 pm at 1:24 pm |
  3. Mikey

    Christian – WRONG!!!

    Someone making $50K in 2000 would probably be making about $70K in 2008. A single person would go from a blended tax rate of 21.2% in 2000 to 19.8% in 2008, or an effective tax reduction of 7.7%.

    A married couple would go from 16.6% to 14.6%, an effective tax reduction of about 12.4%. However, they eliminated the deduction for couples with dual incomes when they reduced the tax rates. They also took away other deductions.

    You can't simplistically look at the tax table. You have to consider the impact of inflation and other changes in the tax law.

    June 6, 2011 01:31 pm at 1:31 pm |
  4. Rudy NYC

    Christian wrote:
    And let's be totally honest about the tax cuts...it was not just the wealthy that got their taxes cut under the Bush Admin. Take a look at the tax tables from 2000 and compare them to the tables from 2008. You will notice that the tax cuts impacted every level of income above $8375 (single). Heck, for married filing jointly, a family making $75,000 went from a tax bill of $15,299.50 in 2000 to a tax bill of $11,112.50 (a reduction of 27%). Seems like this was, in fact, a progressive tax cut, not just a cut for the wealthy.
    -----------
    Bush manipulated the tax rates on the middle class so that most of us wound up paying more. Your figures do not tell the entire story. Recall that Bush-43 apologized for actually raising middle class rates, but increased deductions for investments, screwing up the AMT. If you could afford to invest in excess of $25k per year, then those deductions were highly useful. Most of the middle class paid more in taxes because we could not afford to make the investments that made stuff break even.

    June 6, 2011 01:33 pm at 1:33 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    "If you for one minute think the debt ceiling isn't going to be raised, you've been drinking too much water from the Charles River."

    Oh, I think it will be...and I think the GOP will be quite embarassed about it when it eventually gets raised in a fairly "clean" piece of legislation other than a couple of bones thrown to the GOP so they can mount a podium and claim some sort of save-face victory (just liek they did last time when they reached the budget deal). Fact is, the GOP actually has no leverage here at all because of what a default would do, and they can only hope that if it's passed with a completely "clean" bill, it will make their base really angry. The one real danger is that there are 87 moron GOP freshmen with a freshman chairman/leader who thinks default is no big deal and would do us good...because they're primarily Teatrolls imbeciles. They could feasibly muck the entire thing up for the GOP and what a fun ride into a depression that will be.

    However, that's entirely irrelevant. The uncertainty in the markets is the whole point of what the GOP is doing by trying to playing chicken and ramping up propaganda about it. I don't care how sophisticated a businessman you are or how large of a company or reserve bankroll you have...you don't invest substantial assets into growing your business on the theory I just set forth in the last paragraph to reach the conclusion that "of course it will eventually be raised and we won't default." YOU WAIT UNTIL IT FINALLY IS. The GOP is buying themselves a couple months of bad economic statistics, DOW fluctuations and stalled recovery to blame on Obama.

    June 6, 2011 01:33 pm at 1:33 pm |
  6. C. Howe Yulikit

    Was about to say that his appearance should bring the right wing trolls out of the woodwork, and lo and behold.

    June 6, 2011 01:35 pm at 1:35 pm |
  7. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:
    If you for one minute think the debt ceiling isn't going to be raised, you've been drinking too much water from the Charles River.
    ----------------
    If you think there are some on the right who would not do it, then you have not been paying attention. Both Boehner and McConnell are on record describing how a default would not be as bad as the Obama administration says it would be. It is part of their latest messaging campaign about how they are serious in wanting to cut spending, even at the risk of default. "Don't blame us if we default, blame President Obama."

    June 6, 2011 01:38 pm at 1:38 pm |
  8. Name king

    Hey the economy, is half scycholofy and half reality, if people feels possitive they will spend, if they are unsure they will put they're money up for a rainy day. The government task is to make people feel good about spending. The problem is the repugs won't have that, and will do every thing in their power to put a damp on consumer confidence. If taking away old folks healthcare don't work the doom day budget will, the taking away consumer spending money so that small businesses have to close their door because government consumers are the only stable revenue they have. Vertually every thing the repugs do, goes against the laws of economics.

    June 6, 2011 01:42 pm at 1:42 pm |
  9. Rudy NYC

    Christian,
    I just looked up the AMT for year 2004. At the income levels that you cited, a couple would pay $15,250 in taxes. The tax tables are the wrong source to cite. The AMT actually raises your base rate from your $11,100 to $15,250. That is not what anyone would call a middle class tax cut compared to the 2000 tax table (form 1040A) $15,293. Woopee, 43 bucks for me!

    June 6, 2011 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  10. jim

    I would be embarassed to be on Obama's staff. What a failure.

    June 6, 2011 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
1 2