editorials
Solving the infrastructure puzzle
W e all understand the need
to invest in maintaining and
upgrading our nation’s infrastructure.

That includes work on such fundamentals
like roads, bridges, transportation, water
and energy distribution and the upgrade
of communication networks, including
the internet.

So when the Senate passed a
$1 trillion infrastructure bill with
bipartisan support that addressed
many of those issues, most of us
nodded in agreement. We did so
even though we knew that there
were some who sought a broader
definition of infrastructure, and a
much bigger plan — just as there
were others who opposed the plan
and were concerned about funding
and deficit implications. The next
day, however, Democratic senators
(with no Republican support) passed
another “infrastructure” bill for $3.5
trillion, in order to address a wide
range of social needs. It could take
months for Congress to work through
ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE, THE $1 TRILLION INFRASTRUCTURE
PACKAGE WILL ADD $256 BILLION TO THE
FEDERAL DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

the two bills, with no assurance at
this time that sufficient votes exist to
pass a blended measure.

The Biden administration and the
Democratic Party are seeking to
exploit a thin Democratic majority in
the House and the vice president’s
swing vote in a divided Senate to
address pressing societal needs.

Thus, the $3.5 trillion spending plan
includes $726 billion to expand
education opportunities, $198 billion
toward clean energy, $20.5 billion in
investments in Native communities,
$18 billion to upgrade VA facilities,
$332 billion toward housing
affordability and so on. While each
of these items is worthy, we worry
that the all-inclusive approach seeks
to do too much at once and fails to
give sufficient consideration to the
financial implications of the overall
undertaking. That doesn’t mean that all of the
programs should be abandoned.

But it does suggest that a more
comprehensive analysis of the
financial ramifications of the expanded
programming should be performed
— including an honest assessment
of governmental revenue sources
to pay for them. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the $1
trillion infrastructure package will add
$256 billion to the federal deficit over
the next decade. We cannot afford
multiples of that number for a $3.5
trillion plan.

Fingerhut’s four asks
W hen it comes to issues of
communal safety
and institutional security, congressional
testimony by representatives of our
community have historically focused
on Jewish-centric concerns, like the rise
of antisemitism and encouragement
for government to do more to protect
against it. There is nothing wrong with
that; the government’s responsibility
to protect its citizenry applies to the
Jewish community, just like every other.

But last week, in testimony before
the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs,
Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO
of The Jewish Federations of North
America, took the opportunity to
go beyond parochial needs, as he
urged lawmakers to make broader
improvements in the security for all
faith-based and nonprofit communities
against the threats of domestic
terrorism and violent extremism.

14 While highlighting the distressing
rise in violent antisemitic incidents,
Fingerhut also spoke about ongoing
threats to minorities of color and
non-Christian worshipers as he
built his case. He reported that the
nonprofit community has been part
of an “increasingly sophisticated
and collaborative public/private
partnership” to address security
concerns, but lamented that “the
growth in need for security assistance
has drastically outpaced available
resources.” Thus, he argued, “only
about 45% of the nearly 3,400 eligible
applicants who applied [for security
assistance] in fiscal year 2021 were
approved and only 45% of the $400
million in total security investments
requested were funded.”
Fingerhut, the former CEO of
Hillel International, who was once a
Democratic congressman from Ohio,
had concrete suggestions: First,
AUGUST 26, 2021 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
he called for the designation of the
charitable sector as a critical part of the
nation’s infrastructure. Currently, there
are 16 designated sectors considered
so vital to the United States that their
incapacitation or destruction would
have a debilitating effect on the
country. “The charitable sector has not
yet received such a designation, and
we urge you to give it one,” he said.

Second, he called for a substantial
increase in the funding to the Nonprofit
Security Grant Program — which at
present meets the needs of less than half
of the applicants for security funding.

Third, he asked for increased access to
the Department of Homeland Security’s
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency’s Protective Security
Advisors (PSAs) and Cybersecurity
Advisors (CSAs), in order to help make
the grant-making process smoother
and more widespread, “especially
for the benefit of newly eligible
We are concerned that a one-party
rush to the finish line could result
in waste, mistakes and unintended
consequences. Yet we recognize the
limited window of opportunity and
fraught internal challenge faced by
the Democratic Party. That’s where
the party’s standard bearer, President
Joe Biden, can lead. As noted by
Russell Berman in The Atlantic, “For
Biden the good news is that he is
a president particularly well suited
to landing on the sweet spot for his
party. If he had a singular talent over
the course of nearly half a century in
elected office, it was in finding the
political center — not necessarily of
the country as a whole, but of the
Democratic Party.”
If Biden wants to get his mega-plan
through, Biden will have to guide
Congress through a comprehensive
analysis and presentation that
minimizes waste, provides targeted
solutions and makes clear how those
ambitious initiatives will be funded. l
suburban and rural communities.”
Finally, he encouraged the enactment
of the Pray Safe Act to establish a
federal clearinghouse through which
faith-based organizations, houses
of worship and other nonprofits can
access centralized information on
best practices for safety and security,
available federal-grant programs and
training opportunities.

Fingerhut’s broad appeal resonated.

He gave the Senate committee four
targeted “asks” that would benefit
the entire nonprofit sector and
provide a nation-wide yardstick by
which congressional action can be
measured. As Congress refines the
meaning of critical infrastructure
to be much more than simply roads
and bridges, we encourage them to
include the enhanced protection of
minority communities and nonprofits
from extremists and terrorists within
our national infrastructure. l