Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News
Phil Angelides and Heather Murren, members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, at the release of the panel's report on Jan. 27. Last week, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, after reviewing thousands of documents, issued a report, which explained the causes of the financial unraveling, the role of government and the banks, and the aftershocks of the crisis. The 10-member commission, however, split along party lines, with the six Democrats voting to adopt the report and its findings, and the four Republican members issuing two dissenting reports.
On NPR, Keith Hennessey, one of the Republican commissioners, said that the disagreement could perhaps be boiled down to one statement in the majority report: "We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable." Mr. Hennessey said that sentence "is, if not the key difference, one of just a very small number" of differences between the majority and the dissenters.
Is the conclusion that the financial crisis was "avoidable" defensible? What does the partisan split on this central question mean for future policy choices?