Which is good, but they don't keep the dishonest people from dishonest practices, protect citizens from risk, nor protect consumers from antitrust practices anymore, respectively, it seems.

OP's statement should be read as such:

"They make rules for people that follow rules. If you don't follow rules, then their rules do not apply to you."

The implication is that they lack will, capability, or force.

I think it's mainly capability. I know an SEC lawyer; he's successfully prosecuted a number of insider training cases, but thinks the SEC doesn't have the resources to take on really big players if they put up a fight, because they can overwhelm the SEC with legions of top lawyers and stalling tactics that can make cases take forever. The IRS is the same way; they've been cut way back so they can't effectively fight wealthy cheaters, so they mainly audit poor people for claiming the earned income tax credit incorrectly; those are easy cases for them to bring. A lot of this is because the IRS and SEC have been gutted by Congress to benefit their wealthy contributors.

This is not uncommon in USA regulation. I have an official letter from the head of enforcement for Missouri Department of Natural Resources saying that if a polluter doesn't stop polluting after they ask nicely, DNR won't make them stop.

> Which is good

Only if rule-following is == honesty.

There are probably honest people who can't afford to follow the rules (literally, in the sense of paying for the labor to check boxes on forms correctly) and dishonest people who can afford to cleverly check boxes on forms.

I think that was the GP's point. They're implying that the agencies only engage in redundant work, not significant work.