Latest news with #UrbanInstitute
USA Today
a day ago
- Business
- USA Today
Ernesto Morales Calls for Stronger Community Engagement Strategies in Public-Private Projects
Los Angeles Executive Says Listening First Is the Key to Lasting Impact Ernesto Morales, CEO of North Star Alliances and longtime advocate for community-centered strategy, is calling on public agencies, corporations, and nonprofit leaders to deepen their commitment to authentic engagement practices. The call to action comes on the heels of Morales's recent feature in a career spotlight article titled 'Ernesto Morales: Building Big Ideas That Bring People Together.' Drawing from more than two decades of experience across public outreach, corporate relations, and strategy, Morales is using his platform to raise awareness about how misaligned partnerships can miss the mark-and how better listening could change that. 'Big ideas only matter if they solve big problems,' Morales says. 'Engagement isn't a checkbox. It's a responsibility.' Why This Matters: Trust, Equity, and Outcomes Across the U.S., over $1.2 trillion in federal infrastructure and economic development funding is flowing into local projects through programs like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet many efforts struggle to earn local buy-in, often because they lack culturally relevant communication and input. A 2023 Urban Institute report found that fewer than 35% of residents in high-impact areas felt meaningfully included in planning decisions that affect them. That's where Morales sees an opportunity. 'We need to stop designing solutions in silos,' he explains. 'Communities already have the answers. The job is to make room for them at the table.' From Theory to Practice: North Star's Model Through North Star Alliances, Morales has helped execute over 1,100 projects with clients such as Google, The White House, Coca-Cola, LA Metro, LAUSD, and L.A. Care. The common thread across all of them? Building trust before offering solutions. At Rose Hills Memorial Park, he led culturally specific outreach to Hispanic families around end-of-life services. At Pepperdine University, he helped raise $14 million by aligning university programs with industry needs. And today, he serves as a California State Commissioner on the Employment Training Panel, where he helps guide investment in workforce development. 'It's not just about launching programs,' says Morales. 'It's about listening, learning, and earning the right to lead.' What You Can Do Morales believes that anyone – regardless of profession – can help create more connected, community-focused outcomes. His call to action: Start by listening. Ask your community what they need. Don't assume. Engage early and often. Don't wait until decisions are made to bring people in. Invest in relationships, not just deliverables. 'The most powerful thing we can do is slow down and listen,' Morales emphasizes. 'That's where every lasting solution begins.' To read more, visit the website here . About Ernesto Morales Ernesto Morales is the CEO and founder of North Star Alliances, a Los Angeles-based firm specializing in public engagement, outreach strategy, and strategic partnerships. His career spans roles in healthcare, education, and nonprofit leadership, including at Children's Hospital LA, Pepperdine University, and the Latin Business Association. Morales holds an MBA and a Bachelor's in Business Management from Pepperdine University. Contact: info@ SOURCE: Ernesto Morales View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
What's Next In Philanthropy? Decentralized Models And Smarter Giving
What's next for philanthropy? Philanthropy is in a tough spot. Across the nonprofit world, the recent shakeup by the current administration is sending shockwaves through the grantmaking ecosystem. Government funding, once a dependable cornerstone of many nonprofit budgets, is suddenly under existential threat, and the effects are already visible. According to The Urban Institute, 90% of nonprofits with over $10 million in annual expenses receive government support, with those funds making up more than half of their total revenue. Smaller nonprofits, those with budgets under $100,000, are far less reliant, with only about half receiving grants, and even then, those grants comprise just 13% of their revenue. This time, it's the big players who are most at risk, but the small fry aren't out of the pan either. Over the past weeks we have seen programs that once depended on multi-year commitments are suddenly scrambling for bridge funding. Hiring is frozen, expansion shelved, and in many cases, survival itself is up in the air. Nonprofit leaders now face a binary choice: adapt or fade out. There aren't many of us looking out for silver linings in an existential catastrophe like this for good reason. However, necessity has always been a powerful catalyst, and the question of how the field will evolve in response to the shockwaves is a fascinating one . The economic and political volatility is putting Schumpeter's creative destruction on steroids across the entire philanthropic landscape, and one result of the shakeup will be that outdated models are rapidly being discarded in search of more agile, resilient approaches that are emerging in their place. What's rising in the aftermath is a new breed of giving that is leaner, faster, and built on the principles of decentralization, distribution, and data. Not out of ideological preference, but out of sheer, unrelenting necessity to stay the mission. A Thinning Herd, But a Stronger Breed? Periods of extreme contraction do one thing exceptionally well: they force us to come to terms with our shortcomings and build on only that which works. In biology, bottlenecks can concentrate adaptive advantages for those who survived. For example, many of us are still carrying latent resistance to the bubonic plague centuries after the precipitous event. What doesn't kill everyone, can make the rest of us stronger. Giving is no different. As dollars dry up and public scrutiny increases, only the most efficient, transparent, and impact-driven organizations are likely to make it through intact, alongside those that are most adept at playing the political game of musical chairs. Karen Kardos, Head of Philanthropic Advisory, Citi Wealth, sees this shift as a moment of accountability for nonprofits. 'There's pressure, yes,' she says, 'and that is forcing nonprofits to stay squarely on mission to generate impact. Funders are moving on from simple metrics like saying, 'We funded X' to 'We moved the needle on Y'.' For organizations backed by traditional funding sources, grants, CSR arms, endowments, the pivot to emphasizing effectiveness and efficiency isn't optional. Donors want to see dashboards that prove that the dollars they give pack a punch, not just stories and case studies. 'One thing we are seeing is the acceleration of a cultural shift that has been long in the making,' Kardos adds. 'The old model was report-based. The new model that is quickly becoming the must-have is iterative, responsive, and grounded in outcomes, not just expenditures.' And yet, a number of valuable interventions and nonprofits will be left behind as there are more recipients seeking fewer dollars. There's no downplaying the tragedy this can entail for the beneficiaries and our society at large, and yet, the upside of this forced molting is equally clear: a sector that is emerging leaner, sharper, and more willing to test the boundaries of what giving can look like in a modern, data-literate age. Constraints make better designers. In philanthropy, they may also be making better leaders. Just ask Lurein Perera, co-founder of GiveCard, who built a direct-to-recipient philanthropy model designed to cut out layers of bureaucracy. 'We build and maintain the infrastructure by which nonprofits are giving money directly to people, including those experiencing homelessness, via our debit cards,' he explains. 'It's traceable, fast, and goes straight into the hands of those who need it.' The system includes usage monitoring and the ability to set smart restrictions, but it avoids the kind of paternalism that often plagues aid models. 'We're not trying to control people,' Perera clarifies. 'We're trying to support them, and hold ourselves accountable for doing that well.' GiveCard is lean by necessity, but Perera doesn't see that as a limitation. 'In scarcity, you're forced to be resourceful,' he says. 'You test faster. You talk to users more. You measure everything. That's how you build models that scale, not ones that collapse under their own weight.' This sense of agility is showing up across the board now much more than ever. Clay Dunn, CEO of VOW for Girls, has spent the past few years building a giving engine for a cause that doesn't always get the headlines, ending child marriage. But instead of focusing only on large institutional gifts, Dunn's team has prioritized partnerships, creativity, and distributed donor bases. 'Some of the most effective campaigns we've run have been through small business networks and grassroots ambassadors,' Dunn says. 'People want to give. They just need to feel like what they give matters.' To that end, VOW for Girls emphasizes transparency in how funds are distributed and impact is tracked. Their model allows 100% of public donations to go directly to the field, something that's only possible through rigorous operational design. 'We had to be intentional about the structure,' Dunn explains. 'We made hard choices early so that we could have trust at scale later.' That clarity pays off. According to Dunn, donors, especially younger ones, are increasingly skeptical of overhead-heavy organizations. 'The cause is as important as it ever has,' he says. 'But now what matters even more is how you deliver on that cause and how the donors and beneficiaries perceive you in the process. Trust is the new currency without which nonprofits can't operate.' What unites leaders like Dunn and Perera is a shared commitment to systemic redesign where decentralization is at the root of it all. Decentralized Giving Models: The New Playbook for Nonprofits For years, decentralization had been the talk of future-forward philanthropy. Now, it's the urgent present. In fact, it's a shift that's been quietly underway for a decade, fueled by learnings from failed top-down interventions and reinforced by the success of community-rooted organizations. But where once decentralization was a nice-to-have, it's now a survival tactic. Kardos reflects on this moment as an inflection point for the sector. 'We are seeing a shift to localized ownership wherever possible,' she explains. 'That's a strategic stance that is being taken by more and more international nonprofits. You don't get sustainable change by air-dropping solutions. You get it by embedding capability and agency where it's needed most, and that's where the distributed model outperforms.' Kardos also underscores that this transformation isn't purely reactive. The donor landscape has been evolving too. With fewer dollars in circulation and more scrutiny from funders, nonprofits are being asked harder questions about how dollars are spent, and who gets to decide how they are spent. That pressure is creating a donor's market, where efficiency, transparency, and measurability are prerequisites instead of perks. 'This environment forces all of us, funders, intermediaries, and frontline implementers, to ask how we can get smarter with capital,' Kardos agrees: 'We've seen that the closer a nonprofit gets to the communities they are trying to serve, the better the outcomes. Local partners often know best what works and what doesn't. The most valuable thing funders can offer them is trust, not prescriptions.' But decentralization doesn't mean chaos. Technology is playing a vital role in this transition too. Digital platforms are enabling new forms of donor engagement, localized disbursement, and transparent impact tracking. It's now possible to decentralize not just funding decisions but the entire value chain, from vetting organizations to measuring outcomes in real time. Perera's GiveCard platform wouldn't have been possible a decade ago, and it was a heavy lift even today. 'In many ways we had to reinvent the rails' he says. 'The infrastructure we needed didn't exist because it was largely built for banking, not for the work we want to do. Investing in the tech was essential for us.' Dunn sees similar benefits in tech-enabled storytelling and fundraising. 'You don't need a 10-person team to launch a meaningful campaign anymore. You need a clear story, the right tools, and a few committed allies. It scales faster than people think.' And with that scale, comes outcomes that are derived by means that are more efficient than those that came before, giving hope that the nonprofits left standing after the market stabilizes are in a position to grow back, better than ever. Data-Driven Giving With Human-Centered Design: The Path Forward While there's certainly a glimmer of hope, there's a deep sense of caution that nonprofit leaders should pay close attention to. As data and dashboards become central to philanthropic decision-making, leaders must ensure that people stay at the center of the work. 'Measurement is a means, not an end,' Kardos warns. 'If you optimize for KPIs at the expense of communities, you've missed the point and most likely ended up with unintended consequences. This is why it's so important for funders to be flexible and use data to course correct if necessary.' Dunn puts it another way. 'Data helps us work better and fundraise more effectively, but the individual stories, the lives we are changing, is why we are doing any of this.' Perera agrees, noting that the best philanthropic models are those that integrate feedback loops from the people they serve. 'Our customers run surveys, collect spending data, talk to cardholders. But at the end of the day, what matters most is: did it make someone's life better?' That grounding in human-centered design is what sets this new era of philanthropy apart. The tools are smarter. The systems are more agile. But the heart of the work remains the same. So what does this mean for corporate leaders, institutional funders, and nonprofit boards navigating their role in this changing landscape? For starters, it means asking different questions. It's no longer enough to ask 'How much are we giving?' on the donor side of the equation. Today's donors must ask instead, 'How are we empowering?', 'What systems are we building?', and 'What power are we willing to share?' It also means rethinking how success is defined on both sides of the table. In the new area of distributed, decentralized giving that is ushered upon us, success is not a shiny press release or a fancy infographic. It's a system that sustains itself beyond the grant: outcomes, not optics. Perhaps most importantly, it means listening to new voices. 'The best thing that any leader can do right now,' Kardos says, 'is to ask: Who am I not hearing from?' Whether that's frontline practitioners, the communities they serve, or the recipients themselves—real impact starts with inclusion. As Dunn puts it: 'We don't need to reinvent generosity. We just need to remove the friction that's kept it from flowing freely.' And if that sounds like a startup pitch, that's no accident. Because the future of giving isn't going to look like the past. It's going to be faster. It's going to be smarter. And it's going to be built from the ground up, not inherited.
New York Times
20-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
A Way for People With Low Credit Scores to Raise Them
People who pay their rent on time can establish credit scores or significantly raise low scores if the payments are reported to credit bureaus, new research found. A study published this month by the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., looked at two groups of tenants recruited in 2021 and 2022. The members of one group began having their rent payments reported to credit bureaus immediately after signing up to participate in a program offered by their properties. The members of the other group had their rent reporting delayed by four months. The study found that rent reporting leads to 'large, statistically significant increases' in the likelihood of having a score and of having at least a 'near prime' score — a minimum of 601 on a scale of 300 to 850. The research was the first rigorous, randomized study of 'positive' rent reporting, said Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at the institute and an author of the study, which enrolled 269 participants in affordable housing programs in five states and Washington. In positive rent reporting, only payments made on time are supplied to credit bureaus. The study used VantageScore, a competitor to the widely used FICO score. VantageScore, which uses a scale similar to FICO's but assigns different weights to certain factors, was founded by the three big credit bureaus: TransUnion, Equifax and Experian. Still, some consumer advocates remain wary of rent reporting, saying it may pose risks to vulnerable renters. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
16-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
It's not just taxes: Trump's bill will have ‘big beautiful' effects on education, too
President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act is the most ambitious policy proposal of his second term so far. Although much of the discourse centers on tax rates and the bill's economic impact, its education provisions deserve a closer look for their potential to reshape access and opportunity for millions of American students. At the heart of the proposal is a nationwide tax credit designed to incentivize contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations. These nonprofits distribute scholarships that enable low- and middle-income families to send their children to private and charter schools. The approach builds on Florida's Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which funds more than 120,000 students annually through donor-backed tax credits. According to the Urban Institute, participants in Florida's program are more likely to graduate and attend college than their public school peers from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Most public school students are locked into campuses based solely on their ZIP codes — a geographic lottery that often consigns them to underperforming schools. Trump's bill seeks to disrupt that system without imposing federal mandates or siphoning funds from public education. Instead, it encourages private donations into a parallel funding mechanism to expand educational choice. Under the proposed plan, individuals and corporations could receive federal tax credits for donations to organizations granting scholarships, subject to a $5 billion annual cap. These funds would finance scholarships for students pursuing alternatives to their assigned public schools. Because the scholarships are privately funded, they do not diminish existing public school budgets. Another key element is the reform of 529 education savings accounts. Previously capped at $10,000 annually for K-12 tuition, these accounts would become dramatically more versatile. The bill expands eligibility to include tutoring, textbooks, test preparation, online learning, and homeschool materials. A parent of a struggling seventh-grader, for example, could use 529 funds for personalized online math tutoring, without tax penalty or bureaucratic delay. The revised accounts transform a previously college-centric tool into a real-time support system for K-12 learners. The effect is even more pronounced for the 7.3 million K-12 students receiving special education services. Many families currently pay $100 to $250 per therapy session out of pocket, often with limited insurance coverage. Under Trump's bill, they could use 529 accounts to cover costs for speech therapy, occupational therapy, and adaptive learning software — eliminating the wait-lists and red tape that often impede access through public schools (and shortening those wait-lists for others, as well). The proposal also redefines educational funding by aligning it with 21st-century labor demands. Vocational programs and technical certifications — such as welding, HVAC repair, licensed nursing assistance, and cybersecurity — would qualify as valid uses of 529 accounts. These fields require targeted investment, not four-year degrees, and often cost between $1,800 and $10,000. Given that more and more working adults are earning certificates, the bill acknowledges a workforce reality that federal education policy has long ignored. Critics argue that school choice programs harm public education by diverting resources. But Trump's proposal avoids that pitfall. It introduces new, privately sourced funds that exist outside the public education budget. States like Florida and North Carolina, which have long implemented similar programs, show that these models can succeed without defunding public schools. In fact, choice-based systems often improve outcomes across the board. A 2019 study reported modest but meaningful academic gains in public schools competing with private scholarship programs, particularly in low-income areas. Participation under Trump's bill is completely voluntary. Families can stay in their public schools if they choose. The point is not compulsion but empowerment. One family might use a scholarship to attend a values-aligned or faith-based school. Another might redirect funds toward algebra tutoring or behavioral therapy. A third might pursue technical training that leads directly to employment. The common denominator is flexibility. Families — not bureaucracies — will decide what works. For decades, federal education policy has been top-down: Washington sets standards, and schools chase dollars. Trump's bill reverses that flow. It puts tools directly in the hands of parents, allowing them to tailor their children's education to real-world needs rather than administrative templates. Of course, the proposal requires oversight. Scholarship organizations would have to be held accountable, and misuse of funds prevented. But the structure avoids new bureaucracies or federal mandates. Instead, it leverages private capital to expand opportunity and entrusts families with the freedom to choose. Gregory Lyakhov is a high school student from Great Neck, N.Y.
Politico
16-06-2025
- Health
- Politico
The Medicaid work-requirement push
Presented by Driving the day THE MEDICAID WORK EFFORT — Congressional Republicans are in lockstep on new Medicaid work requirements not only because they help generate savings for a spending package that extends President Donald Trump's tax cuts but also because some of them say there is a moral imperative behind the proposed rules, POLITICO's Robert King reports. Many of them have long been skeptical about the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, which enabled healthy adults to get Medicaid coverage if they earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Republicans have speculated that a sizable portion of new beneficiaries is not working and taking advantage of the coverage. 'We need to at least make an effort to try to help people, to get their life back together,' Sen. Jim Justice ( said. 'Will that result in a whole bunch of people who will lose their health insurance? I hope to goodness not.' House Speaker Mike Johnson has said the only people who would lose coverage are those sitting around 'playing video games all day.' Other Republicans have said the requirement tackles fraud. But only about 300,000 of the nearly 5 million people expected to lose coverage if the new requirement becomes law as part of the House-passed GOP megabill refuse to work due to 'lack of interest,' a new analysis from the left-leaning Urban Institute shows. That means people willing to work would lose coverage because they either cannot find work or because they cannot overcome administrative hurdles, experts said. Background: The megabill would require able-bodied, working-age Medicaid recipients to work for 80 hours a month, but they could do volunteer work or go to school. Pregnant women and new mothers would be exempt. Some of the critics of other megabill Medicaid provisions support work requirements, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). He wants to get rid of new cost-sharing obligations for beneficiaries and a freeze on states' ability to levy provider taxes. He has told reporters he is not concerned about the prospect of inadvertent coverage loss, adding that 'we can sort that out.' Even so: There could be a lot to sort out. 'People will have trouble successfully complying with the reporting requirements,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a liberal philanthropy that commissioned the Urban Institute analysis. 'That is what we have found when we studied other states that put work requirements in Arkansas and New Hampshire.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 18.5 million people would be subject to the work requirements each year and 4.8 million people would lose coverage by 2034 for noncompliance. The estimate means that some people could lose coverage even if they meet the requirement, per the estimates from Urban and an earlier analysis released two weeks ago from the Brookings Institution. WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. We hope everyone had a wonderful Father's Day weekend. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and follow along @Kelhoops. In Congress TAX PORTION OF MEGABILL EXPECTED — The Senate's GOP tax package is expected to be released today, POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill, Jordain Carney and Benjamin Guggenheim report. Senators are continuing to hash out key issues in President Donald Trump's megabill — including the tax provisions and changes to Medicaid. Senate Finance Committee members held an hourlong, high-level lawmakers call Friday to brief on the issues. Republicans are also waiting on more cost estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as negotiations proceed. Key context: Several blanks are still expected when the text is released today — likely for the state-and-local-tax deduction, key Medicaid provisions and green energy tax credit phase-outs. Even if Medicaid language is included, GOP senators view it as a placeholder as they continue to work on agreements with some of their holdouts before a floor vote later this month. Medicare Advantage FIRST IN PULSE: PROTECTING MA — A top Medicare Advantage advocacy group will circulate a new report on the Hill this week touting the merits of the private health insurance program over traditional Medicare. The push comes as Senate Republicans consider targeting overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans to help offset the cost of their sweeping megabill, including bipartisan legislation from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Some Republicans have thrown cold water on including the provisions in the bill, and insurers have strongly opposed the inclusion, saying it would lead to higher costs and reductions in benefits. The findings: The report, which Better Medicare Alliance will disseminate across both chambers of Congress, found that in 2022 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries spent an average $3,486 less on out-of-pocket costs and premiums than those enrolled in traditional Medicare. That's a nearly $1,000 jump in average savings from BMA's findings last year. Medicare Advantage enrollees were also 35 percent less likely to spend more than 20 percent of their income on health care expenses, according to the report, which was conducted by ATI Advisory. 'America's seniors are concerned about the rising cost of health care, and Medicare Advantage is delivering for them: with better care and improved health outcomes at a lower cost than Fee-for-Service Medicare,' said Mary Beth Donahue, president and CEO of Better Medicare Alliance. 'And as this report shows, the value gap continues to grow. But this progress depends on strong federal support.' Even so: Medicare Advantage has been scrutinized by bipartisan members of Congress and providers that said the program is overpaid by billions of dollars a year, excessively denies claims and is slow to pay for care. Amid the scrutiny, insurers have tried for months to avoid becoming a target as Republicans look for offsets to pay for President Donald Trump's megabill. Those efforts have included commissioning studies and writing papers to show the program needs more funding, not less, and to counter the narrative that Medicare Advantage is a magnet for government overpayments — as well as telling lawmakers on key committees that traditional Medicare is a better target to root out waste, fraud and abuse. Key context: More than half of people eligible for Medicare opt for the privately run Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare, which the government runs. Lobbying NEW PhRMA HIRES — Florida transplants Rubin Turnbull & Associates have registered to lobby for PhRMA, the brand name drug lobby, POLITICO's Caitlin Oprysko reports. The trade group retained Rubin Turnbull in March to lobby on a range of issues related to the drug industry, according to a newly filed disclosure. It's the third outside lobbying hire for PhRMA this year, after the organization hired DLA Piper and GOP lobbyist Doug Schwartz of HillNorth at the beginning of January. Why it matters: PhRMA's latest hire came about a month into industry skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s tenure atop HHS. In a report last month, Kennedy has heaped criticism on vaccines and blamed drug industry lobbying for contributing to chronic disease among children. The pharmaceutical industry already has no shortage of lobbying prowess, with more than 40 other outside firms on retainer and lobbying outlays of $12.9 million just in the first quarter of 2025 — a quarterly record. At the Agencies MAHA POLLING — Support for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement among Americans is largely split, new polling from NBC News shows. About 51 percent of the public views Kennedy favorably, while 48 percent views him unfavorably, according to the poll. Most Democrats view Kennedy 'strongly unfavorably,' while a slim majority of Republicans view him 'somewhat favorably.' But a key part of Kennedy's MAHA agenda — probing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines — didn't break down as neatly along partisan lines, the poll found. On vaccines, nearly half of Americans said they 'strongly support' using them to prevent diseases, with 31 percent more saying they 'somewhat support' using them. That includes about three-quarters of Democrats who 'strongly support' the use of vaccines, and majorities of Republicans and independents support vaccines either 'strongly' or 'somewhat.' Kennedy has also pledged to focus on overhauling the nation's intake of ultra-processed food. The polling also found many Americans are at least somewhat sympathetic to that focus, with 35 percent saying the food industry deserves the most blame for chronic health problems in the U.S. like obesity and heart disease. The next most popular pick was 'the choices of individuals,' which 32 percent of people chose as deserving the most blame for chronic health problems. Only 3 percent of Americans said vaccines were most to blame. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was powered by SurveyMonkey and conducted online from May 30 to June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults ages 18 and over. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill report on an old Capitol Hill troublemaker who is trying to clinch a megabill deal. The Washington Post's Dana Hedgpeth reports on health officials warning of a measles case from a traveler who landed at Dulles International Airport. CNN's Jacqueline Howard reports on how Gen X and millennials are about three times more likely than their parents to be diagnosed with appendix cancer.
