Kamala Harris has just released some 15 years of her tax returns. This is interesting, certainly, and is obviously a little dig at Bernie Sanders and a much larger one at Donald Trump. Except it’s not really all that important, given that this is the period she’s been holding either state-wide in California or national office as a Senator. Both sets of jobs having pretty strict limits on what it is that can be done as an outside economic interest. Writing, speeches, sure, a continuing interest in a family business, but not a great deal more than that.

Perhaps most importantly, the usual sources of state patronage are cut off. And that’s the only part of Kamala Harris’ economic life that we might have an interest in too. So, this isn’t what we really want to see:

Meh. Given the fuss that’s been made about Trump’s returns there’s not a Democrat on the planet who isn’t going to be releasing their returns.

What’s much, much, more interesting is this:

Mhmm, hmm.

Right ho.

Rumour has it that just the one of those jobs paid $80,000 a year. Back in the 1990s that was serious money. Especially for a part time job.

Sure, and it’s not uncommon for a man to find a sinecure job for his mistress in order to provide her with an income. But that’s why those Kamala Harris tax returns from 1993 through 1996 or 7 would be so interesting. For we’d be able to find out how much of Harris’ income was coming from those patronage jobs. You know, how much of Brown’s provision of her sinecure was with our money not his? Even, if a man wants to keep a mistress aren’t we allowed to ask that he keep her, not us keep her for him?

Yes, yes, I know, this isn’t an abnormal career path in the slightest. Been going on since the first time an older man noted a younger woman. But it’s still true that those are going to be the tax returns of interest….how much of her income was coming from those sinecures? And yes, we can tell, we can just deduct her deputy district attorney salary from her total labour income.

If we’re going to have transparency then why not have real transparency?