He could have slipped this in as a rider on the bailout bill, like Blumenauer did with the bike commuter benefit. But now, if Schumer is putting time and effort into tax breaks for suburban commuters, that's coming at the expense of more important fights. Even if he doesn't have enough juice on his own to get transit operations into the Senate stim bill, he should be making noise about it, like DeFazio. If New York's senior senator won't turn it into an issue, who will?

As things stand, this press he's getting about making the fare hike go down easier is undeserved and should be countered.

1) He helped Phil Gramm repeal FDR's Glass-Steagall Act, contributing mightily to the current financial crisis. Of course his buddies on Wall Street made sure he was well compensated with bribes, oops I mean perfectly legal campaign contributions.

2) He has consistently taken his city base for granted while tailoring every aspect of his take on transport issues toward "the Baileys," his mythical suburban couple. He assumes liberal Dems like me will just keep on voting for him no matter what.

Well, I've had enough and I'm looking for an alternative. I will vote for any Democrat who runs against Schumer in the primaries as long as he/she is some kind of sentient being on urban issues. And when it comes to the general election, I'll be looking to third party candidates. If necessary, I just won't pull the lever for senator at all.

Yes, we should be demanding from gov't big and fast changes that help people choose transit. But small as this step is, it is only forward, not backward.

I got my own issues with Schumer, but not many relate to Streetsblog type issues.

As Streetsblog, at the center of the growing streetsblog.net, becomes more and more something that policy makers hear from and about, I wonder if the agenda might be better served if the editorial voice eventually becomes a little less snarky towards policy makers who are making a good effort, at least in their own yet-unenlightened Washingtonian minds.

Go ahead, Flame-on.

But the complication does make the bicycle benefit not quite worth the hassle.

It doesn't do much for those in the 22.5% tax bracket either (15% plus 7.5%). In the Clinton era, there have been lots and lots of policies via tax breaks, which provide more benefit the more you earn -- but phase out at the upper incomes.

The Republicans may be the party of the rich (and redneck suckers) at this point, but the Democrats are the party of the upper middle class yuppies who are shrewd enough to get a good deal for themselves and only pretend to be worried about others. The greatest benefit matches up with the upper salaries in the public and non-profit sectors, and solidly earning lawyers.

Hey Democrats, I want universal health care finance at the federal level, with an equal level of benefit to those of similar ages and health conditions, through a choice of public and private plans.

Not the current tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance, which is also worth more the more you earn, and tax-funded gold-plated benefits for public employees and retirees. By the new federal budget this October. Or else.