Homeownership subsidization follow-up

To follow up on my previous post on homeownership subsidization which discussed how federal housing policies subsidizes homeownership to a much greater extent that it subsidizes rental housing, I'd like to point, via Ezra Klein, a David Wessel article in the Wall Street Journal further elaborating on how unnatural the homeownership process is in the United States.

Keep in mind that:

Home ownership rose from around 40% of households in the 1940s to about 60% in the 1960s and then hovered around 65% until the 1990s, when a government-backed push to spread ownership, particularly among minorities, helped lift the rate, reaching a peak of 69.4% in mid-2004.

What's stunning is how in hard-hit areas, how few households actually have any equity in their homes; in San Diego, it's 35-39%, and in Las Vegas, it's even worse, 15-19%. That's with a homeownership rate of 55% and 59%.

And there are the side effects. The cherished right to repay a mortgage and get a cheaper one creates a huge, lucrative refinancing industry whose value he (referring to Patrick Lawler, "chief economist of Fannie and Freddie's regulator") questions. And it creates a need for Fannie and Freddie, which may end up costing taxpayers more than any other element of the much-reviled bailouts. Without them to guarantee repayment of a loan and lubricate the market, the 30-year fixed-rate loan would be more costly and less common. But Americans might be better off.

People who believe that only rental housing and low-income people are subsidized are deluding themselves.  Based on what I've read on this issue lately, I'm starting to wonder if there's any housing in the United States that is not subsidized in some way.