Amazon, a Prime Marketing Genius!

By: Eli Verschleiser

Long after Amazon has settled into its new Virginia headquarters, people will still be shaking their heads at the spectacle of America’s most valuable company leaving New York City in the dust.

This is, as one cable network calls it, “the beating heart of business,” a thriving metropolis. Setting up shop here is a privilege. Our workforce is elite, our infrastructure flawed but unparalleled and we are beginning to give Silicon Valley a run for its money as a high-tech hub, thanks to the number of STEM students who graduate here and want to stick around.

Some will therefore argue we never should have offered Jeff Bezos economic incentives to set up his vaunted H2Q here, falling into his trap of showering gifts to competing with the likes of Austin, Newark, Miami and Indianapolis. Perhaps this bended-knee approach weakened our brand, while strengthening his.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said you have to be tough to make it in New York City, and not be afraid of union leaders and local politicians, who don’t have the power of the purse strings but merely a street corner pulpit and the votes of their district constituents behind them.

But maybe Amazon was tougher than we think. Maybe the whole H2Q extravaganza was meant as a massive marketing campaign to boost the company’s profile and market capitalization. Maybe they took a page from President Trump’s playbook and learned how to maximize free publicity for power.

In an interview with Bisnow, Amazon’s global head of economic development, Holly Sullivan, said she had no regrets about the unprecedented contest and all the time and energy evidently wasted on the New York deal.

“When you look at it, the investment and the commitment that we’re making — I think we’re the only company that has made this type of jobs commitment ever,” she said. “And you want to make sure that you have those good relationships today, but also five to 10 years from now. We felt very confident that we’re going to have those relationships with Arlington County and the commonwealth [of Virginia]. We didn’t feel as confident in New York.”

“When you look at it, the investment and the commitment that we’re making — I think we’re the only company that has made this type of jobs commitment ever,” she said. “And you want to make sure that you have those good relationships today, but also five to 10 years from now. We felt very confident that we’re going to have those relationships with Arlington County and the commonwealth [of Virginia]. We didn’t feel as confident in New York.”

Insisting the company would do absolutely nothing differently with the benefit of hindsight, Sullivan said the process built “relationships with economic developers and community leaders all across North America. It’s been a great process for, I think, everybody, and I think communities had a chance to learn about themselves too."

This is great posturing for the company: Far from conceding that they let themselves be bullied out of the deal, they are not only emphasizing how much they learned but how they helped others simply by talking to them. Brilliant!

Sullivan is not wrong when she says Amazon is unique in its ability to generate activity and create jobs -- indeed the reason their projected tax break was so large is because an existing formula was applied to 25,000 jobs over a period of 12 years.  As a parting shot, Sullivan says “We felt very confident that we’re going to have those relationships with Arlington County and the commonwealth. We didn’t feel as confident in New York.”

By picking up its ball and walking off the field, Amazon fires a proverbial shot across the bow of negotiating partners. Even in cities where socialist protestors and NIMBY activists don’t hold as much sway, city officials and economic development authorities will have to work twice as hard and proffer even more goodies, knowing the deal isn’t solid until ground is broken.

According to some analyses, the deal would cost taxpayers far more than Amazon let on.  But the company isn’t just a generic insurance company or mid-level retailer concern, and on top f the new and relocated jobs the LIC HQ2 promised hundreds, maybe thousands more in construction and other related activity. But as many conservative observers have said, the lesson for New York and other officials is to cut taxes for all businesses and create a pro-business environment across the board to strengthen their hand in future negotiations.

As Holman Jenkins Jr. wrote in the Wall Street Journal post-deal collapse, “The world would be a better place, and New York would do better by its long-suffering job creators, if it spent less time dishing out favors to a handful of big-name companies.” Rather, he said, make the city overall more hospitable, especially to job-creating small businesses.

The backlash among the Big Apple’s citizenry seems appropriately focused on the naysayers, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who seemed to perceive deal as a cash payment to Amazon rather than a break on the projected billions of revenue. With so many shaking heads, the rebels emerged as the tail that wagged the dog.

But if ordinary New Yorkers want to vent their ire against Amazon for the unilateral breakup, they can always take their online shopping elsewhere. Rival Jet.com has some nice deals, and the Walmart subsidiary has been bolstering its New York ties, recently partnering with the Fulton Fish Market to deliver daily fresh seafood.

As for myself, I’m sticking with Amazon Prime, which is still the best way to secure goods online cheaply and efficiently.  I have not skin in the game as an investor or partner, but as a New Yorker and member of the business community,  as the company continues to grow and thrive and tax full advantage of opportunities -- the American way -- I will continue to tip my hat to them.

About the author:

Eli Verschleiser is a Financier, Philanthropist, and Child Advocate. In his Philanthropy, Mr. Verschleiser is on the board of Trustees for the American Jewish Congress, Co-Founder of Magenu.org, & President of OurPlace, a non-profit organization that provides support, shelter, and counseling for troubled Jewish youth. Mr. Verschleiser is a frequent commentator on political and social services matters. Follow Eli Verschleiser on Twitter: @E_Verschleiser

Ending DACA Would Make Us A Land of Broken Dreams.

Congress must act to prevent punishment of those who committed no crime.

By: Eli Verschleiser

We are in the process of a rigorous national debate on immigration in this country, and that is a positive, healthy process.

With notable exceptions in some corners who have sadly become very strident lately, most Americans recognize that open doors to new Americans, with new skills and ideas is a bedrock of our democracy.

At the same time, we can’t turn a blind eye to those who break the law by violating our borders. It’s unfair to legal immigrants, costly to states and municipalities and does not allow us to identify criminals, terrorists, the contagiously ill or fugitives from trouble in other countries. Some reform of legal immigration, including the refugee process, is also necessary.

I’m confident that a fair comprehensive reform will emerge from this debate that will keep our borders guarded but open and allow enforcement agents to concentrate where they are most needed: stopping or deporting dangerous people.

That’s one of the purposes of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that President Trump, faced with lawsuits from states on both sides of the issue, has discontinued, calling on Congress to enact a similar law as part of a reform package.

DACA’s pending refusal of new applications puts some 800,000 eligible young people ages 15-36 in danger of deportation. 

While President Barack Obama’s process for putting this policy in place via executive action was flawed (and in the eyes of many a blatant effort to shore up his political base for the 2102 election), the motive and reasoning behind it is solid.

For one thing, children who had no say in illegally entering or remaining in this country, and who have known no other place to live and may not even speak the language of their homeland, are at no fault of their own and should be allowed to stay, not suffer for their parents’ crime.

Especially not when they are living productively, getting an education, working and paying taxes, or serving in the military. The protection does not apply, obviously to “people convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety,” as stated in the guidelines. It also does not apply to people in the process of deportation proceedings.

Further, deporting DACA eligible young people, an estimated 90 percent of whom  are employed, will cost us as much as $2 billion in lost taxes, according to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. That’s in addition to court and other costs for unnecessary enforcement and deportation proceedings, estimated at $10 billion, while tying up agents who could and should be breaking up terror cells, violent gangs or drug smuggling rings.

DACA does not automatically provide a citizenship stamp or even a green card: Just protection that must be renewed every two years.

According to the New York Times, President Trump said he was acting on behalf of “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

As far as the jobs argument is concerned, unemployment is at a record low, and we shouldn’t assume the 4.4 percent who remain unaffected by job growth, of mixed ages, have been denied because of these immigrants, and that they will have the training and other capabilities to take those jobs opened by deportation.

Some say DACA provides an incentive for people to come here illegally with children. That may be true if permanently implemented, but under the current program it only applies to people who have been continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, not future arrivals.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday (9/10), Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona called for a “comprehensive” immigration reform that gives priority to keeping those engaged in Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) careers, while keeping borders secure. He said it is not “conscionable to tell young people who came here as children that they have to go back to a country that they don't know,” in particular the estimated 900 DACA-eligible members of the armed forces.

Hopefully a majority of his colleagues in Congress will agree, but with numerous debates looming over tax reform and the budget and federal relief for storm damages taking priority it will be an uphill battle to make any progress on immigration before March, when the program effectively ends.

We have adopted some backward policies and laws, creating years of non-sensible red tape. Immigration needs to be reformed from the ground up. But kicking these Dreamers out goes against the core of who we are as Americans. Their only “fault” is that their parents wanted to achieve a better life, a better hope, and a better future for them, and that’s why they have been labeled “Dreamers” -- they embody the ideal of the American Dream.

They are not so different from my grandparents who immigrated to America from Europe pursuing dreams of their own, namely the dream of thriving without the threat of religious persecution. America has always been a beacon for such people.

But deporting dreamers will dim that beacon.  As the Wall Street Journal observed, rescinding DACA betrays those who, encouraged by the government, provided personal identification and records to apply for the program. “These young immigrants have committed no crime and trusted the federal government to protect them.”

At a time when we are struggling with our international image, the last thing we need is to become known as a land of broken promises, and broken dreams.

About the author:

Eli Verschleiser is a financier, real estate developer, and investor in commercial real estate. In his Philanthropy, Mr. Verschleiser is on the board of Trustees for the American Jewish Congress, Co-Founder of Magenu.org, & President of OurPlace, a non-profit organization that provides support, shelter, and counseling for troubled Jewish youth.

Mr. Verschleiser is a frequent commentator on political and social services matters.

Follow on Twitter: @E_Verschleiser

Could the Mideast Use Some ‘Trumpification’?

Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, recently spoke out against what he called the “Trumpification” of the Middle East.

“The recent massive arms deals President Trump made with the Gulf monarchies exacerbate the risk of a new arms race … I am very concerned by the dramatic escalation of the situation and the consequences for the whole region,” Minister Gabriel said.

He was referring to the White House siding with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Qatar for its evident support of Iran and jihadist terror via the Muslim Brotherhood. This has built into quite the standoff and the resulting blockade has had ripples throughout the region. The Qatari riyal has taken a beating and they are seeing compensation for the blockade. In addition to the Saudis and UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Maldives and Yemen have all cut ties with Qatar.

It's a mess all right, but with due respect to the Germans and other critics, Trumpification may not be such a bad thing. In taking a hard line against Doha, the President is continuing the Bush doctrine, that the U.S. "should make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account." Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is within his purview to try to negotiate a solution to this standoff, after the proper lesson has been learned, but despite his evident misgivings and indignation about the key role played by Trump son-in-law and key advisor Jared Kushner, he should support his boss on this.

Trump reportedly doubled down on his position in a call with Gulf region leaders. According to the White House, as reported by Reuters, “"He reiterated the importance of stopping terrorist financing and discrediting extremist ideology. The president also underscored that unity in the region is critical to accomplishing the Riyadh Summit's goals of defeating terrorism and promoting regional stability," the White House said.

"President Trump, nevertheless, believes that the overriding objective of his initiative is the cessation of funding for terrorism," it said.

In addition to its links with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar has also nurtured ties with Israel’s most fierce enemy, Hamas, under the claim that it is trying to promote more engagement and moderation. (That claim was bolstered by a recent Hamas statement that seems to accept a two-state solution, albeit one that does not formally recognize Israel.)

Yes, it was disappointing that the president has shelved his campaign promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

But he certainly made a solid statement about Jerusalem as the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall. And there’s much else to like about the emerging Trump Middle East policy. Unlike his predecessor, he acted quickly when Syria crossed the imaginary 'red line' by gassing civilians, launching a quick and punishing airstrike.

He also seems to take the more realistic view of the region and what our goals there should be.

Writing in Politico, Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that Trump’s policy “reflects a sound understanding of what the United States can achieve in the region and, importantly, what it cannot.”

Noting that Western efforts to promote democracy that led to the Arab Spring produced more fractured societies but no real change agents, Cook adds “The Trump administration seems to understand this and has pragmatically shifted American policy to achievable goals like rolling back the Islamic State and challenging Iran’s efforts to extend its influence around the region.”

Those who believe Trump, a businessman and political amateur is not a serious president with real policy goals may dismiss his Mideast stance.

But it suggests a practical view of the fight against ISIS recognizing that, other than democratic Israel, there are no other perfect allies in the Middle East.

The 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and the country has a troubling history of terror support. However, Iran is worse in that their leaders continue to make threatening statements against Israel and the US while almost surely planning to resume their nuclear arms quest as soon as they can get away with it. While he’s keeping the John Kerry-brokered nuclear deal in place for now, President Trump is avowedly pessimistic about it.

The Saudis on the other hand have growing, low-key ties with Israel based on strategic interests and common enemies.

Given the disastrous Middle East policy of Barack Obama, which entailed alienating Israel while cozying up to and placing misguided trust in Iran, and chasing pipe dreams about the spread of democracy if we just talk nicely to people and avoid saying “Islamic terror,” 

Trumpification seems to me to be potentially one of the best processes to come along in years.

Originally Published: IsraelNationalNews.com 

Left wing protests only strengthen the Right

By: Eli Verschleiser

Our country seems more sharply divided today than it has been for generations.

With a new president in the White House, only 14 percent of Democrats approve of his performance, compared with 90 percent of Republicans. The Pew Research Center has found that Americans of both parties are increasingly disapproving of a president of the opposite party, and that at the height of the election campaign 81 percent of Donald Trump supporters viewed life in America today as worse than it was 50 years ago, compared with just 11 percent who said it is better.



Among Hillary Clinton supporters’ 19 percent said life is worse, compared with nearly six-in-ten (59 percent) who said it is better.

Those divisions have been on sharp display since Trump won the election, with mass protests across the country. While mistakes have been made by the president and his staff during the breaking-in period (we can’t exactly call it a honeymoon) there have been calls for his impeachment, or worse. The media pounce on his every word and mistake.

“Not my president,” the protesters declare, while the Democrats in Congress, with their minority numbers in both houses tried feebly to block the appointment of the new Cabinet members.

Clearly, despite the loss of Congress and the White House, the Democrats have failed to learn the lessons from the populist victory of 2016. In different areas of the country, there were localized concerns but a few things united citizens in the 37 states in which a majority voted against Hillary Clinton.

Millions of Americans want to feel good about their country and want government to stay out of their lives except to provide a strong economy, protect their rights and defend them from harm. They also want borders that mean something and a prevailing sense of law and order, not condemnation of the cops and excuses for criminals.

As much as some moderate Democrats might like to take this into consideration and steer the party at least to the middle, the party is in the process of moving even further left. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 22, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party “has engaged in an intramural fight to remake the party in a more populist, liberal mold.” The goal of Sanders’ Our Revolution movement of five million, forged from Sanders surprisingly powerful presidential bid is “making party officials and elected Democrats more accountable to activists, and replacing them if they aren’t.”

That means the crowds that often take to the streets berating the police, waving Palestinian flags, supporting illegal immigration and occasionally turning violent will be steering the ship.

Will Tom Perez as newly minted leader of the party have a better clue to why so many voters find this abhorrent than his predecessor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)?

Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal said after the Democrats chose their new leader that the selection of Perez shows the party isn’t ready to do any “soul searching about what happened in 2016,” but rather wants to “bring the Sanders people and their energy into the party.”

The difference between Perez and runner-up Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) in that race, Gigot said, was not ideological but rather a choice of “insider vs. outsider,” since Perez was an Obama Cabinet member. Ellison, with his troubling history on Israel and past support of Louis Farrakhan, is now the deputy party chairman.

Trump critics say they’re outraged over rising anti-Semitism, yet they have no problem raising the banner of hate against the Jewish state by calling for either its outright destruction or its severe weakening via economic sanctions and boycotts they think will pressure Israel into relinquishing territory to the Palestinians. The same voices never seemed as perturbed when anti-Semitism rose during the Obama years.

“Where are the liberal leaders when Jewish cemeteries are desecrated and campuses are painted with swastikas and racial slurs?” asked Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat, in a statement. “How are the leaders of the Democrats communicating with and reining in their followers when these crimes are committed? It’s simple. They’re not. Instead they’ve found an easy answer: Blame Trump.

“Should the President of the United States do more to stop these crimes? Absolutely. But to blame these anti-Semitic incidents on the Trump presidency is absurd. Anti-Semitic crimes were up 9 percent from 2014 to 2015. Does former President Obama own that?”

The continued protests weeks after the inauguration are appalling, at best. Are there that many people without jobs that have so much free time on their hands?

The president should be given a chance to articulate his agenda, set the country on a new path.

So President Trump is a reality TV star, yes we knew that. But I find myself less outraged at him and his policies than I am at the relentless critics who did not want to see Barack Obama go and wanted to continue socialist policies by electing Senator Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton.

It has been nearly 30 years since a president handed the White House over to someone of the same party.

We only get one president at a time, and so the protesters should step back and acknowledge that people like me are more likely to look at what they are doing and move further to the right, not the direction they advocate.

Originally Published: The Hill

‘Stargate’ Does Not Make Trump An Anti-Semite

By: Eli Verschleiser

The trouble with politics in the social media age is that the need to take fullest advantage of this massive, free platform for connecting and promoting ideas becomes so powerful that it often obscures good common sense. A candidate who is not Donald Trump, with his temperament and spontaneity, would have been undone by this a long time ago. I won’t list all of his controversial tweets here, but suffice it to say he’s an equal opportunity and bipartisan offender with remarks about Hillary Clinton, his Republican opponents, climate change, immigrants, fellow celebrities and more. Even when he tries to say something positive, as in the case of his Cinco de Mayo message featuring a taco bowl, he gets hammered. But Trump seems to eat bad publicity for breakfast, a larger than life figure who somehow defies convention by taking hits from the media and numerous other public critics and emerging politically stronger.

That will likely be the case following the recent dust-up, in which an anti-Hillary meme, reportedly tied to a neo-Nazi message board, found its way into the Donald’s Twitter feed. It features, as you have undoubtedly heard, a Magen David star with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever,” superimposed over a picture of cash.

Yes, the tweet is may be offensive, and yes it may have been intended as a subliminal message that the Democratic nominee, former New York senator and former secretary of state is a tool of Jewish money as the source of her corruption. It may have been bad judgment to use it rather than a campaign generated attack on Hillary, but the ironically low-budget campaign seems to be strapped for talent these days.

Trump at first deleted the Tweet, replacing it with a doctored starless image, but later doubled down and said the original could easily have been a sheriff’s star rather than a religious symbol. And then silly season really began, when the campaign showed a Disney book with a similar star on the cover. If they’re not anti-Semitic, he argued, neither am I.

As having done business with the Donald, I am certain he is not even close to being anti-Semitic. There were more Jewish religious individuals around his office than in a local synagogue. 

L-R Donald Trump & Eli Verschleiser (2005)

Throughout his meteoric rise in this election cycle Trump has evoked comparisons to Hitler. Google their names and you’ll find pages of discussion on this topic, with most saying the comparison is egregious (I agree), even if his tactics may evoke elements of Third Reich populism. So it was only a matter of time before he was accused of Antisemitism.

The shoe does not fit. It’s not just that Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted, and Jewish members of his campaign.The guy responsible for the tweet, he declared, has a Jewish wife

Trump has built his success in a city in which it’s pretty difficult to navigate the business landscape without dealing with Jewish peers, and in all the decades he’s been on the real estate scene none has ever publicly accused him of prejudice. I recall an episode of “The Apprentice,” Trump’s signature NBC reality show, in which he defended the right of an Orthodox Jewish contestant to observe a Jewish holiday rather than participate in a scheduled group project. He counseled the other contestants to accept that this was a reality of the business world and they should learn to adapt.

Many of Trump’s critics in this matter are sincere, understandably offended by the tweet and his ambiguity about its message that is so clear to others. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt scoffed at the Disney comparison. “Connecting the Star of David to money and politicians is intended to invoke anti-Semitic stereotypes,” he told Buzzfeed News.

“I wish he would bring the same firmness to his rejection of anti-Semites and racists as he brings to members of the media and other candidates.”

Fair. But let’s accept that some of the people co-opting the right to be indignant over this matter are motivated by politics. They see that, given Hillary Clinton’s complicated relationship with Israel in her various public roles and the significant questions about her trustworthiness, the Jewish vote in large part could go either way in this election, straining the traditional Democratic loyalty.

Those critics, angered and worried about his position on Muslims and immigration would like to see Jews drawn into the fray. Not just the liberal Jews who have already steadily denounced him, but the mainstream, middle of the road leaders in swing state communities.

Donald Trump’s campaign made a mistake sending that Tweet, and I hope he makes up for it in the final stretch of the election by being more careful and denouncing bigotry in all its forms, including the people supporting him who practice it. But there are more than enough real anti-Semites and real would-be Hitlers out there. Trying to label Trump as one of them for political reasons based on one Tweet also takes our national discourse in a bad direction.

After this dies down, maybe we can actually talk about some of the serious issues facing the country, and what the candidates plan to do about them.

Originally Published: The Times of Israel