Wall Street Journal's false claim that the regulatory tax is now larger than the income tax



<p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; text-align: left; ">On the Wall Street Journal's editorial claim that "the regulatory tax on Americans is now larger than the income tax": The WSJ editorial board writes: "so-called independent agencies like the Federal Reserve... were a perfect 0 for 17 in failing to estimate costs as well as benefits [of regulation]..." Are they seriously claiming that the Federal Reserve has overregulated financial markets over the past decade because it hasn't been writing bureaucratic reports explicitly enumerating and comparing costs and benefits?