Once there was a secretary of housing and urban development nicknamed Silent Sam who worked so far under the Washington radar that President Ronald Reagan did not even know who he was, months after making the cabinet appointment. “Hello, Mr. Mayor,” the president mistakenly greeted his HUD secretary, Samuel Pierce Jr.

We recall that moment only to note that Mr. Pierce, whose problems at the agency included underlings’ corruption and his own indifference to the job, at least had the wisdom to keep a low profile. Not so the current secretary, Alphonso Jackson, who, in a talkative visit back home to Texas, let an audience of business leaders in on the bare-knuckled political bias that taints the administration’s contract awarding process.

Mr. Jackson recounted meeting a minority publisher seeking a contract with the agency. “He made a heck of a proposal,” the secretary recalled. “Then he said something. … He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’ ”

A deal-breaking utterance.

“He didn’t get the contract,” said the secretary, making no apologies about such constitutional niceties as free speech or the fairness requisites of federal procurement law. “Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?”

Once a well-deserved storm of criticism inundated Mr. Jackson, he backtracked, insisting he simply made the story up “anecdotally” and there was no denied petitioner or contract. Whether real or imagined, however, the story drove home the secretary’s rhetorical point all too well: political fealty trumps merit in the administration’s dealings with contractors.

Up on Capitol Hill, the former Republican majority leader, Tom DeLay, made this open dogma in setting up his K Street project to pressure lobbyists to favor the G.O.P. with donations if they wanted access and favors. Secretary Jackson haplessly revealed a similar pay-to-play mind-set in his tale of how contract money is, of course, presumed to cycle back in political donations — and a petitioner had better be pro-presidential.

Like Mr. Reagan, President Bush is unenthusiastic about HUD’s entire mandate, particularly the part about using government resources to provide affordable housing for the poor. And like Mr. Reagan, he picked a secretary who seemed well qualified to preside over failure. Mr. Jackson has had earlier foot-in-mouth moments. He suggested only the “best” residents should be allowed public housing in the New Orleans restoration, and, as under secretary, he threatened a “whupping” to motivate agency workers. Congressional opposition has been the only roadblock to his dismantling federal programs for low-income housing.

This would be the moment at which we would normally call on the president to ask for Mr. Jackson’s resignation. But the country has long since learned that Mr. Bush does not regard poor performance as a firing offense, though the record on that score is clear. So far, Mr. Jackson’s standout achievement has been to drop all pretense in revealing how the administration really works.