Geithner and Bureacracy and Puritanism

Haven't read Timothy Geithner's new book yet.  Some of the reviews bring up the criticism that Geithner and the administration should have done more for homeowners who were under water.

Not being an economist I don't know what I'm talking about (:-) but I've two reactions:

• as a bureaucrat I suspect part of the problem was/would have been bureaucratic.  Treasury had never, to my knowledge, dealt with homeowners before, or probably not even with the owners of home mortgages.  So any program to help homeowners would have been plowing new ground, meaning you'd have to setup your program infrastructure as well as implement the program.  By comparison, Congress can come up with new agricultural programs in the farm bill, knowing bureaucracies exist which are capable of reaching farmers and implementing them. Even back in 1933 the AAA was built on the infrastructure of the extension service.  Lacking the infrastructure also means there's no network in place to provide information and lobby the bigshots for action.
• as a liberal I should support helping homeowners, but in the case of the underwater people my inherited puritanism shows its teeth.  You really mean that somebody who signed a liar's loan, and/or tapped his home equity for other expenses should be helped?? No way, no how.  (Don't ask me how I reconcile that reaction with acceding to the bailout of Wall Street bankers.  OK, Wall Street seemed a necessary evil, particularly when the money market funds started to break the buck.)