This is a very relevant question asked by Lynn Turner, a former accountant at the SEC. This question is in response to this story: Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds

Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

Get that - they don't face Senate confirmation. Geithner's 'kitchen cabinet' comes right from the financial oligarchy:

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

Besides Sperling and Sachs there are:

Geithner’s inner circle also includes counselor Lewis Alexander, the former chief economist at Citigroup; Chief of Staff Mark Patterson, who was a lobbyist at Goldman Sachs, and Matthew Kabaker, a deputy assistant secretary who worked at private equity firm Blackstone Group LP. Patterson’s and Kabaker’s jobs did not require confirmation.

Why does this matter? It's about perspective. It's about the same thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Here is an example:

The Treasury Department failed to monitor “explosively controversial” bonuses American International Group Inc. paid to executives before committing to pump another $30 billion into the insurer, said the chief watchdog of the U.S. financial rescue program.

This is from the latest report from Neil Barofsky, special inspector for TARP. "Move along nothing to see here", is the attitude of this Treasury Department. Would this happen if there were people with different perspectives and not entirely from the financial oligarchy?