1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blueprint for Reform

Discussion in 'Air Traffic Control' started by NovemberEcho, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    Here is The Heritage Foundation's (a conservative think tank instrumental in developing Trumps cabinet) recommendation to the Trump Administration for ATC. They call for full, for profit privatization and open competition (meaning multiple ATC companies running the NAS). A far cry from NavCanada or even the non-profit quasi govt corporation offered up by Schuster last year.

    Privatize Air Trafc Control. The federal
    government is still heavily involved in the aviation industry even after air carrier deregulation was undertaken in the late 1970s. The FAA’s financial
    vehicle, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, collects roughly $14 billion in aviation taxes annually, pri-
    marily from taxes on commercial passengers.14 Fed-
    eral taxes and fees comprise 13.7 percent of the cost of a domestic ticket (excluding federal fuel taxes).15
    The FAA expends these taxes primarily on operations and capital costs of Air Trafc Control, which is operated by the FAA’s Air Trafc Organization
    (ATO). The U.S.’s experience with government-run Air Trafc Control has proven to be problematic. Government bureaucracy has led to an ATO that
    is slow to react, mired in red tape, and managed by Congress when it should be run like an advanced business. Billions of dollars have been spent on technology modernization eforts (known as the Next Generation Air Transportation system, or NextGen)
    to no avail, and the ATO struggles with basic business functions such as hiring employees, investing in capital improvements, and improving efciency
    in its current structure.16 Instead of maintaining Air Trafc Control as a
    government entity, the proposal fully privatizes air trafc control to bring private sector flexibility and
    efciency to the essential service. This new private entity would be wholly separated from the federal government and subject to competitors, with an
    explicit specification that it would not receive tax-payer assistance under any circumstance. Free from bureaucratic shackles, the private air trafc control
    provider would then be able to issue bonds, pursue management reforms, and collect its own revenues,
    allowing it to modernize efectively and benefit the whole aviation industry.
     
  2. Roger Roger

    Roger Roger Navajo Whisperer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    7,010
    Likes Received:
    8,213
    I'm pretty free-market conservative and that sounds awful.
     
  3. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  4. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    Where did you get that Trump asked for this study/plan??? That just is not true. It's completely independent and the Heritage Foundation chose to write this a year ago and published it last March. It is part of a series. It had nothing what so ever to do with Donald trump and elections had not even taken place. They have researched, performed such studies and published them many time before each new President has been elected or taken office since the 80's. It is simply their own ideas for reform and other issues. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/07/blueprint-for-reform

    Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017
    By The Heritage Foundation

    About the Author
    The Heritage Foundation

    The Heritage Foundation is publishing a three-part Mandate for Leadership Series of documents over the course of 2016. Each document educates the American public, specifically including Congress, the new American President, and the new President’s team. All three parts deliver a clear, unified policy vision for Congress and the President to preserve and create opportunities to enable all Americans provide for their families, contribute to their communities, and pursue their dreams.

    Part I, “Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for 2017,” which Heritage published in March 2016, provides detailed recommendations for the federal budget put forth by Congress. Part II, “Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017,” this edition, establishes a long-term vision, and policies to achieve that vision, that requires presidential leadership and congressional action. Part III will identify presidential and Cabinet-level priorities for reforming major agencies consistent with the policy proposals presented in the first two parts of the Mandate series.

    For Americans to achieve better lives, the next President and Congress must take steps to allow Americans to build for themselves a stronger economy, a stronger society, and a stronger defense. Heritage regularly assesses the strength of America’s economy, society, and defense and has found great need for improvement, as reflected in:
    Adoption of the recommendations set forth in this Blueprint for Reform would strengthen America’s economy, society, and defense.

    A Comprehensive Policy Agenda
    The federal government of the United States has grown considerably both in size and scope under President Obama. Years of defense budget cuts have also resulted in a smaller and weaker military at a time when protection of individual liberties at home and abroad requires a strong national defense. The policies pursued by Congress and the President have led to a demonstrable reduction in personal freedoms and an increase in debt, resulting in declining economic freedom.1

    Federal debt has nearly doubled, from $9.986 trillion at the end of 2008 to $19.207 trillion in May 2016.2 By the end of this year, gross debt will have increased from 68 percent of the economy to 105 percent between 2008 and 2016, according to the Office of Management and Budget.3

    The growing debt is expected to double annual debt service payments within five years and quadruple them over the next 10 years, from $253 billion in 2016 to $839 billion in 2026.⁴ That $839 billion in interest represents 59 percent of the entire amount of the discretionary spending projected for the government in 2026. In fact, the government projects that it will spend 17 percent more on debt service payments than it will for national defense in that year. The country cannot and should not sustain the current course of excessive spending and borrowing.

    Excessive spending has driven the growing debt and created an unsustainable budget. A recent Heritage Foundation study finds that the growth in federal programs accounting for 60 percent of total spending over the next 10 years cannot be supported by future tax increases.5

    Reforming the major entitlement programs, especially the federal health care and retirement programs (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), is essential to improving the budget outlook and avoiding a future debt crisis.

    There has also been an unparalleled expansion of the regulatory state in the last eight years. The Obama Administration has imposed 229 major rules since 2009 at a cost of $108 billion annually (according to the regulatory agencies own numbers). The actual costs are far greater, both because costs have not been fully quantified for a significant number of rules, and because many of the worst effects—loss of freedom and opportunity, for example—are incalculable.

    The next President of the United States and Congress will face significant challenges in restoring to public life the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. They can begin by pursuing the following proposals:

    Pro-growth tax reform. The tax system should raise the revenue necessary to fund a limited government at the lowest level possible for constitutionally appropriate activities, but the current U.S. system is outdated and extracts too much from the private economy. The tax system should apply the least economically destructive forms of taxation, have low rates on a broad base, minimize interference with the operation of the free market and free enterprise, and minimize the cost of compliance for taxpayers. It should also minimize adverse impact on the core institutions of civil society.

    Balance the Budget. The federal budget absorbs enormous resources from the economy, both in money taken in from taxpayers and in money borrowed. The budget should be balanced by driving down federal spending, including through entitlement reforms, while maintaining a strong national defense and not raising taxes.

    Reduce Regulatory Burden. In a post-Obama era, the need for reform of the regulatory system will be greater than ever before. Immediate reforms should include the requirement that legislation undergo an impact analysis before a floor vote in Congress, as well as a requirement that every major regulation obtain congressional approval before taking effect. Sunset deadlines should be required for all major rules, and independent agencies should be subject to the same White House regulatory review as executive branch agencies.

    Repeal Harmful Laws such as Obamacare and Dodd–Frank. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare) and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd–Frank) greatly expanded federal control of the health care and financial sectors. Obamacare is unpopular, unaffordable, and unworkable.

    Congress should repeal Obamacare in its entirety and replace it with patient-centered, market-based reforms. Dodd–Frank should also be repealed. Additional reforms should include removing the federal government from housing finance, ending the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending power, and ending federal loan and security guarantees.

    Rebuild the Military Capabilities of the United States. The military capabilities of the United States to protect America and its interests abroad have been significantly reduced. The risk to Americans everywhere posed by global terrorism, the eruption of conflicts in many regions of the world, and American retreat in the face of challenges have begun to show the American people what a world without America looks like. The ability of the United States to exercise leadership and protect its interests depends substantially on the strength of the U.S. armed forces. The new President and Congress need to allocate the necessary resources to strengthen U.S. military capabilities.

    Reform Welfare. The current U.S. means-tested welfare system has failed the poor. It fails to improve self-sufficiency and the cost of the welfare system is unsustainable. Total federal and state government spending on means-tested welfare now reaches over $1 trillion annually. Welfare reform should encourage work, a proven formula for reducing dependence and controlling costs. Furthermore, the vast majority of means-tested welfare spending is federal. Because states are not fiscally responsible for welfare programs, they have little incentive to curb dependence or rein in costs. States should gradually assume greater revenue responsibility for welfare programs; that is, they should pay for and administer the programs with state resources. Additionally, leaders should work to strengthen marriage. The absence of fathers in the home is one of the greatest drivers of child poverty. Policymakers should reduce marriage penalties in the current welfare system and find ways to promote marriage in low-income communities.

    The first six chapters of the Comprehensive Policy Agenda provide policy summaries in the areas of economics, tax, entitlements, regulation, energy and natural resources, and foreign policy and defense. The second section of the book is dedicated to establishing agency and department budgets and policy objectives for the next 10 years. Each agency and department chapter also contains a revised “Mission Summary” outlining its proper scope. The appendix includes estimates showing how the policies presented here will affect the federal budget and agency budgets. The book can serve as the next President’s first budget.

    A Blueprint for Reform will:
    • Improve the long-term sustainability of the federal budget by slowing the growth of entitlement spending;
    • Update the tax code to promote economic growth and opportunity;
    • Streamline federal departments and agency operations and personnel costs;
    • Reduce total spending by $10 trillion over 10 years on a cash basis and by $10.3 trillion on an accrual basis if used for agency personnel costs; and
    • Balance the federal budget on a unified basis by 2024.
    Read the full report

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/11/blueprint-for-a-new-administration



    Blueprint for a New Administration: Priorities for the President
    By The Heritage Foundation


    About the Author
    The Heritage Foundation

    Since the publication of Mandate for Leadership in 1981, The Heritage Foundation has sought to inform presidential Administrations with principled, conservative policy recommendations to address the issues facing the country. This year, given the magnitude of the challenges confronting our nation, Heritage is publishing three volumes in the Mandate for Leadership Series.


    All three volumes in the Mandate for Leadership Series deliver a clear, unified policy vision for Congress and the President. Undergirding each volume is a commitment to upholding the Constitution and to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.


    Part I, Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for 2017, released in March 2016, provides detailed recommendations for the annual congressional budget.

    Part II, Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration, released in July 2016, establishes a long-term vision, and policies to achieve that vision, that requires presidential leadership and congressional action.

    This volume, Blueprint for a New Administration: Priorities for the President, details specific steps that the new Administration can take immediately upon assuming office to demonstrate its commitment to the long-term vision presented in the second volume.

    In formulating policy recommendations in the domestic realm, Heritage analysts were guided by the belief that government policy should serve to strengthen—and not displace—free markets and civil society. In the defense and foreign policy realms, they prescribed policies aimed at protecting the sovereignty of the American people, enabling the military to protect the country’s vital national interests, and promoting economic freedom abroad.

    Blueprint for a New Administration offers specific steps that the new President and the top officers of all 15 cabinet-level departments and six key executive agencies can take to implement the long-term policy visions reflected in Blueprint for Reform. The most important priorities are addressed to the President; the remainder to the Secretary or agency head.

    A number of the recommendations in Blueprint for a New Administration can be implemented unilaterally by the President on day one via executive order, but some of the most important recommendations—like repealing Obamacare and reforming Social Security—will require congressional approval. As a consequence, the recommendations in this volume are meant to identify the specific steps the new Administration can take to influence congressional action where necessary.

    Our country faces many serious challenges at home and a growing number of threats across the globe. The full implementation of this blueprint will not address every problem in the country. Each year, Heritage assesses the strength of America’s economy, society, and defense and our most recent findings reveal a great need for improvement, as explained in:

    2016 Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, ed. Terry Miller and Anthony B. Kim;

    2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity: The Social and Economic Trends that Shape America, ed. Jennifer A. Marshall and Rachel Sheffield; and

    2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength: Assessing America’s Ability to Provide for the Common Defense, ed. Dakota L. Wood.

    Blueprint for a New Administration will, however, go a long way toward strengthening America’s standing in the world, meeting critical national security needs, rebuilding constitutional government, and reducing the federal government’s heavy footprint on the economy and civil society.

    Edit: I see you have now changed your statement since I posted my response to you. It doesn't matter what a private entity thinks. They are not part of the government nor do they have the power to make policy or pass and implement any laws. They have written and published these studies before every election since the fricking 80's. Everyone is so frothing at the mouth to blame Trump for any and everything, that you stated that he had asked for this report/study. Bejebus
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  5. Dugie8

    Dugie8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,140
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Alternative Facts.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    A Life Aloft likes this.
  6. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    No chit. This crap is going to take place for 4 damn years. If you cannot find anything that he actually did that you disagree with, just make chit up, much like the media. Pretty soon, we'll have nothing but Trump bashing threads in the lav because the 5 threads that we already have, are just not enough. lol
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  7. Dugie8

    Dugie8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,140
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    They're gonna be Hyuuuuge.

    2 ways to get to know the real person

    Have them check their email on a dial up connection

    Disagree with their politics


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  8. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    To be fair, and although I acknowledge my ignorance on the HF doing this for every incoming president, at no point did I bash Trump for this at all. I never claimed they were his ideas or that any sort of legislation like this is in the works. But in my defense, this the ATC equivalent of NAI. And with Schuster already trying for it last year, we are a little paranoid.
     
  9. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    It is a bash when it's something that you disagree with and believe is negative and then you try to associate Trump for ordering the study, which he did not. I am just fed up with people trying to blame him for everything under the sun, even bogus things and he hasn't even been in office for a week. People are just jumping to all kinds of asinine and unfounded conclusions. Again, the Heritage Foundation is a private group. They can suggest anything they want to. They are not the only ones who have called for the privatization of ATC. Doug Parker at American Airlines being one of them, yet I don't see any threads about him. This is what The Hill had to say last October: http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-newsletter-137#b Where's the thread about that? Where's a thread about Bill Shuster who been pushing for this for a long time?

    I understand your and other controller's concerns, believe me. I just want the facts to be honest and true and presented that way.
     
  10. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    I merely listed Trump as in requesting recommendations because I believed it was why it happened. I don't consider it a negative for any president to request such a thing, and no reasonable person would blame the president for what gets recommended to him.

    And do you mean this thread?
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/bill-to-privatize-us-atc.231601/

    Or this one?
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/delta-air-lines-against-atc-privatization.226472/

    Or maybe this one?
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/atc-privatization-bill-thrown-out.232782/


    You're accusing me of jumping to conclusions when I all did was post what the Heritage Foundation recommended to the Trump administration. The fact that what they recommend sucks does not make it an attack. It is their own words. Yes, I was wrong on thinking that Trump requested the recommendations. Regardless, that was a mere background footnote and not the substance of the post. At no point did I claim these recommendations are being adopted by Trump, or even supported by him. If I said that, than THAT would be an attack.
     
  11. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    The issue is that the Heritage Foundation did not recommend anything specifically to Trump as you have now stated. You can't seem to grasp this. The study/report was published in March of last fricking year and was addressed to whoever was to become President, no matter what candidate or party was selected and won.

    Most of the report and the research was done in 2015 for crap's sake. I even posted the prefaces to the report. No where is Donald Trump mentioned. They never gave any report to him specifically; not before the election and not after the election either. And as I have stated three times now they have published theses reports before every new election since the 80's and have never addressed any specific candidate or given it to any specific President after the election process. So yes, you did jump to conclusions in stating that Trump ordered the report, which he did not, in your original statement and now when you insist that the Heritage Foundation presented the report to Trump specifically which they did and have not. All the parts of the report were published months before the election. All the reports are titled for "The New Administration", whoever that might be and have been in every single election year. Bejebus. How difficult is this to understand/comprehend?

    This is the problem with those who have such fierce and die hard agendas.........they simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

    And great that there have been two threads early last year and one in 2015 about ATC and none of them started by you........just this thread because you thought Trump was somehow involved. Cripes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  12. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    Exactly, they recommended it to the incoming president. That person is Trump. Ergo, they recommended it to Trump. If Clinton had won, I would be be saying they recomended it to her, although I wouldn't be giving it as much thought as the HF most likely wouldn't have a hand in picking her cabinet like they have in Trumps. I don't know why you're getting so caught up in semantics at this point. I acknowledged I was mistaken in saying Trump requested anything. As far as I see it, that has been the only inaccuracy.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-transition-heritage-foundation-231722
    And there aren't a lot of controllers on here, being primarily a pilot forum, so I don't know why you seem so shocked that not a lot of ATC talk happens on this forum. Go look at controller forums if you want to see in depth discussion of ATC issues.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  13. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    I am so happy to learn what the frick Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent group that opposes abortion rights and three "unnamed other sources" have to say. lol Bejebus you are really grasping at straws now. This is just amazing.

    The Heritage Foundation did nothing but ream Trump's ass the entire time he was running, starting clear back when he first announced his candidacy and right up to the elections. They never wanted him as a candidate and never supported him. Again, they are a private organization just like millions of others. Hundreds of all kinds of organizations will be vying for Trumps time, attention, wanting a meeting and possibly wanting to give him some advice, ask for something or whatever. This is no different than what has happened with every President. Every special interest group on the planet want's his ear and a meeting. The part about ATC in their reports - that is all three volumes represents .0000000001% of what they had to say.

    They still did not give the report to anyone. It was published on their fricking website. You think they emailed it to him or something? Maybe sent a courier to the White House and dropped it off? Good Grief.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  14. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    Try making it past the first paragraph next time.

    The simple fact is the HF is a major conservative think tank. They made these recommendations for whomever became president. Trump is president. These recommendations, if adopted in one form or another, can have a great impact on my and other controllers careers. That is worth discussing. If you don't wish to participate in said discussion other than to accuse me of attacking Trump (which I didn't in any way), then don't participate.
     
    amorris311 likes this.
  15. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    What discussion? You are making erroneous statements based on what? You already posted the same exact thing over in the ATC forum (which is where it belongs to begin with) before you posted it here and you stated
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/heritage-foundation-recommends-full-privatization.245907/

    Please provide the concrete proof that they are instrumental in developing Trumps cabinet, and that they will be pushing the ATC issue with him. Again, that was a tiny, tiny part of their entire three reports.

    Then you came to the lav to post it and declared that Trump had ordered it because of your rabid dislike of him. When you were shown/given the actual truth, you then edited your original post. The only reason that you also posted the exact same thing here was to go on another Trump rant. At least be honest about it.

    Now you are insisting that the Heritage Foundation presented it to him, which they have not and that somehow they have some magical power or influence to make that tiny part of their three reports come true. You better get to going on all the other entities then that have spoken out in the last year about privatizing ATC and start threads about them as well. While you are at it, start posting about all the other zillion groups left wing and right wing who will be vying for his time and trying to influence him.

    Shuster is the current heavy influence and has been pushing this for a long damn time. He has already been talking to Trump and others about it.
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f286ef2e25a8413aad2bf99cbfee528a/key-lawmaker-trump-favors-privatizing-air-traffic-control
    And from this year:
    http://usblogs.pwc.com/industrialinsights/2017/01/18/2017-the-year-of-air-traffic-control-reform/

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...an-privatizing-crosshairs-Air-traffic-control

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lock-rivals-and-privatize-air-traffic-control

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...ivatizing-air-traffic-control/article/2610544

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...poses-privatize-air-traffic-control/79745638/

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/12/10979334/air-traffic-control-privatization-airr-act-congress

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielr...ot-at-being-passed-by-congress/#676b8b814aaee

    etc.

    The fricking Heritage Foundation is not the issue here and is the least of your worries. They do not have the power that you think they do. You are just focused on a rant over them because of their conservative views. This issue had been discussion in Washington for a long time now.

    Hell, last year you were "up in the air" about the whole issue:
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/bill-to-privatize-us-atc.231601/page-2

    You never even made one post in this thread that you linked above:
    http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/delta-air-lines-against-atc-privatization.226472/

    Now suddenly it's all

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  16. A Life Aloft

    A Life Aloft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,924
    Likes Received:
    11,508
    Oh, both threads are merged now. FYI, Everything from post 4 down is from the lav.
     
  17. learhawkerbe400

    learhawkerbe400 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    575
    What effect would privatization have on controller salaries/pensions?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. NovemberEcho

    NovemberEcho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    It really depends how it is privatized. For me personally, it might wind up being to my benefit being at NY. Currently we are part of FERS (federal employee retirement system) with a defined benefit pension. If not already vested, (5 years civilian service) that would go away. How it would go away has a few different possibilities.

    Personally I would prefer to remain under the FAA. Almost all of the FAA's issues can be directly traced to us being held hostage every time a budget debate comes along. If they made us immune to government shutdowns, or at least allowed the FAA to shift funds within its budget, it would help things immensely. If we privatized along the lines of a NavCanada system, a government non-profit, I could stomach it most likely depending exactly how our contract is worded. But I am completely against a for-profit privatization model.
     

Share This Page