But the state Senate has had only Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, as president from 2008 until a few weeks ago. Steinberg left to media accolades this fall. Note this long Q&A in which the Bee reporter’s framing is consistently favorable to the former teacher.

Yet his successor, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, is off to the roughest start of any Californian assuming a high-profile office since Lane Kiffin took over as coach of the Oakland Raiders.

De Leon has gotten skeptical to scathing media responses for a relatively long list of things in a relatively short time.

More perceived screw-ups since Walters tore him up

On Dec. 4, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters blasted him for a “series of blunders.”

Walters ripped de Leon for verbal gaffes that proved hugely damaging to a Central Valley Assembly Democratic hopeful; for a self-important, pompous “inaugural” ceremony in Los Angeles; and for gutting many of the Senate’s most experienced policy analysts because of murky budget problems. Insiders said if the Senate really were hurting, the logical thing to do was lay off the political apparatchiks on all Senate staffs, not the people with the institutional memory.

The knocks have kept coming since Dec. 4.

De Leon’s announcement last week that he would pressure CalPERS and CalSTRS to disinvest from coal-affiliated companies — but not those in oil or natural gas — struck a chord in the wrong way with just about everyone.

I talked to one insider who said there was disbelief among lawmakers that 1) this symbolic, hollow gesture was highlighted as an early priority of de Leon’s and 2) that de Leon wouldn’t realize this would seem insubstantial and not worthy of his time. Another Sacramento watcher told me he couldn’t believe de Leon would focus on this trivia instead of grabbing a chance to be enviros’ hero by talking up a fracking ban. New York state’s passage of such a ban last week shows how much it’s where greens want to go.

Oversight office abruptly scrapped

Then de Leon was pulverized last week by editorials in both the Bay Area Newspaper Group and its sister Los Angeles News Group over other actions as well. This is from the Vallejo Times-Herald’s version:

“De León has eliminated a team of Senate aides dedicated to evaluating state government institutions and programs. He declined to renew the Senate’s Office of Oversight and Outcomes, established in 2008 by then-Senate President Darrell Steinberg with a goal “to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and productively.

“The four-person staff’s combined salaries of about $379,000 seemed a small price for the good it did.

“Among the reports the office produced just last year were ones on the misuse of student meal funds by school districts, including $158 million in misappropriations and unallowable charges by Los Angeles Unified; about how the state’s system for overseeing substance-abuse counselors failed to flag sex offenders; and assigning blame for problems with the $373 million state payroll system. Among earlier reports was one looking at 10 tax breaks that, over a decade, cost state coffers $6.3 billion more than anticipated.”

Accused of wide range of political sins

What’s interesting is that these criticisms of de Leon don’t just focus on money-grubbing or another particular sin that politicians sometime specialize in. Implicitly, they make quite a sweeping case.

In possibly costing an Assembly candidate a chance at victory, de Leon is accused of poor political acumen.

In staging a showy unofficial “inaugural,” de Leon is accused of grandiosity.

In his Senate shakeups, de Leon is accused in one of a power grab and, in the other, of showing ignorance of the importance of a new but respected Sacramento institution.

In thinking that going after coal while ignoring fracking would make him look good, de Leon is accused of — to be blunt — stupidity.

The Sacramento version of the Stockholm syndrome

That is a pretty sweeping bill of particulars. What’s going on here?

The most obvious problem is that de Leon is politically tone-deaf in a way that’s striking for someone who’s made such a rapid ascent.

But the less obvious problem is that a lot of times it’s not fun to cover politics. It feels sleazy, disheartening, transactional, petty and repetitive. Steinberg made it feel more principled and sincerely, earnestly progressive.

That mattered to a bigger chunk of the Sacramento media-political establishment than people far from the state Capitol might imagine. This establishment didn’t miss Steinberg’s, er, colorful predecessor Don Perata at all.

In January 2008. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he backed state lawmakers’ push to revise strict term limits for a specific reason. In response to a question I asked him at an editorial board meeting, Arnold said he thought Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Don Perata deserved to keep their jobs because under their stewardship, they had kept the state in “a good kind of groove.”

Really? In what way? Both at the time and six years later, any “groove” is hard to discern.

Now we’re seeing another display of this from the Sacramento media-political establishment: the recent media boomlet promoting the idea that departing Senate President Darrell Steinberg has done such a bang-up job that he deserves another really big job after he is termed-out — as justice on the California Supreme Court.

Here’s what the Sac Bee’s Capitol Alert had to say about what Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt had to say:

Herdt makes the case that Gov. Jerry Brown should appoint Steinberg to fill one of two openings on the California Supreme Court. Herdt praised Steinberg as the “most productive legislative leader” since term limits were imposed, and argued for his broad expertise in state law and his skill as a consensus-builder.

Herdt wrote that Steinberg — who worked as an employee-rights lawyer and an administrative law judge before being elected to the Legislature — would be a “soberly creative” choice for Brown.

‘Productive’ in what sense?

Now I understand why folks might have been charmed by Núñez. He has a loose, funny, teasing manner, or at least he did in my several encounters with him. And I understand that many journos think well of Steinberg, who by most accounts is very smart and a very hard worker.

But just as back in 2008 I wondered what kind of groove Arnold was perceiving, with Herdt’s assessment of Steinberg, I wonder in what sense has the Senate leader been “productive.”

In the past dozen years, where are the big achievements that Steinberg has produced?

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, and by far.

The great majority of counties have never emerged from the Great Recession.

California’s schools are clearly behind the nation’s other mega states when it comes to apples-to-apples comparisons of students by age and ethnicity.

The 2012 state pension reform measure is vanilla and doesn’t do remotely enough to help the local governments that are hardest hit.

The 2014 teachers pension bailout puts 90 percent of the burden on taxpayers and only 10 percent on teachers themselves. A key selling point of the 2012 state pension reform was that it would force employees to equally share in their pension costs. Never mind!

The state appears no closer to solving its intractable water problems.

This list could go on and on.

That’s all you got?

So what is behind the happy talk?

I think much of it has to do with the fact that Prop. 25 makes it easier to pass budgets and not have multi-month dramas summer after summer after summer.

And some of it also has to do with AB 32, the state’s landmark 2006 law forcing a shift to cleaner-but-costlier energy.

Journos never seem to remember that it was peddled with the claim that it would convince the rest of the world to copy California; that didn’t happen. Nor do they ever notice that in 2006, no one had the audacity to pretend it was a job-creation program, the present ongoing Lie No. 1 of public policy in the Golden State.

This rosy-scenario-itis isn’t a new problem, alas. Here’s an example from 2008.

The view from within a one-mile perimeter around the state Capitol sure is counter to the view in California’s other 163,000 square miles.

That it isn’t a bigger story is further direct confirmation that the complacent, union-centric, anti-free market worldview of the Sacramento political establishment pretty much sets the tone for what’s covered by the Sacramento media establishment. The only places one routinely sees commentary pointing out how terrible the state’s overall economy is? Pro-free-market newspaper editorial pages in San Diego and Orange County.

Maybe now that an organ of the left is pointing out how bad joblessness is in California, the issue will get some attention.

Low-wage, middle-wage workers hurting badly

OK, of course not, that’s not how Sacramento works. That’s reflected by the fact that the story about the new analysis is on the website of a Los Angeles area NPR affiliate — not in the Times or Bee.

“A report by the California Budget Project says the addition of 750,00 jobs over the past three years has still left much of the state in double-digit unemployment.

“‘California still has a job market in which too many workers can’t obtain full-time jobs that pay a good wage,’ said Luke Reidenbach, policy analyst with the non-partisan CBP and the report’s author. ‘California’s emerging recovery is not providing the mix of jobs needed for a robust economic rebound that benefits the full range of workers and their families.’

“Among the group’s findings: The share of unemployed Californians who have been seeking work for six months or longer is down only slightly from a record high, and stands at 43 percent. The report also found men have fared better than women. During the past three years of overall job growth, employment among prime-working-age men – ages 25 to 54 – has increased, as it dropped slightly for women in the same age group.”

“Other numbers: 1.3 million workers, or eight percent of all employed Californians can only find part-time jobs; 34 out of 58 counties have an average unemployment rate in the double digits. The lowest county unemployment rate is 5.1 percent in Marin County, and the highest is 24.5 percent in Imperial County.

“Due to recent gains, high-wage workers — those at the 80th percentile of California’s earnings distribution — have seen inflation-adjusted hourly earnings nearly return to their 2006 level. Meanwhile, inflation-adjusted wages of low-wage workers (those at the 20th percentile) and mid-wage workers (with earnings exactly in the middle of the distribution) have failed to catch up to pre-recession levels.”

Don’t hold your breath on seeing much of this in California’s mainstream media. The narrative is established: Jerry Brown has the Golden State on the rebound.

Snort. Not if you’re among the one in five California adults who want full-time work but can’t find it.

“SACRAMENTO — In the closing days of the Legislature last year, Gov. Jerry Brown helped forge a compromise on a sweeping overhaul of the workers’ compensation insurance system and persuaded Democratic and Republican lawmakers to pass it into law.

“Now he is taking on another big challenge: He wants to fix the state’s financially ailing unemployment insurance program, which pays jobless Californians up to $450 a week.

“With one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates for several years, the state has had to borrow money from the feds to keep the program going. Now that the jobless rate has fallen to 8.5%, Brown would like to start paying down a $10-billion debt.

“His administration is circulating a draft bill that would put the system on an even keel by raising payroll taxes paid by employers. ….

“People close to the process say that [Brown aide Marty] Morgenstern is proposing an increase in the amount of wages subject to unemployment insurance taxes from the first $7,000 of annual pay to $9,500 and eventually $12,000.”

Impact of higher taxes? What impact? Who cares?

Nowhere in the story are we told that polls show many Californians strongly object to higher taxes.

Nowhere in the story are we told about California’s level of taxation relative to other states.

Nowhere in the story are we told how much working Californians would have to pay extra if $12,000 of their income were subject to the unemployment insurance tax instead of $7,000.

All of these details matter. So does the bizarre way California got in this mess. It wasn’t because unemployment has been high — as the LAT strongly and wrongly implies. It was because a dozen years ago, the genius Democrats in the Legislature had the majority of votes to raise unemployment benefits sharply — by 96 percent over four years — but they didn’t have the two-thirds vote needed to raise the payroll tax to cover the additional costs of benefits.

So what did they do? You weren’t expecting competence or sanity, I hope.

In Sacramento, dumb-de-dumb dumb

“Republicans strongly objected because they thought the big increase was unjustified and that the higher taxes to be imposed on employers to pay for it would be burdensome. … [Nevertheless,] Democrats forced through the benefit hike on a simple majority vote. … The accompanying bill to raise taxes on employers to fund the boost failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds support because of GOP objections.

“The sheer stinking dumbness of this gets even worse. In 2002, the state bureaucrats running the jobless benefits program told The Sacramento Bee this wouldn’t be a problem.”

Shades of CalPERS and SB 400. Math is not a strong suit with state budget officials. That excerpt was from an editorial I wrote last year. Another relevant point from that piece:

“Nevertheless, despite the frequency with which we see such stories, the Sacramento political and media establishment remains resolute in its belief that the real problem with California is Californians – you know, the numskull voters who demand services but balk at paying for them.

“As if voters wanted state employees to be among the highest paid in the nation with pension benefits most Californians would die for. As if voters wanted the number of workers paid by the state to increase by nearly 25 percent since 1997. As if voters wanted the state government to do something as apocalyptically stupid as increasing unemployment benefits by 96 percent without funding the gigantic increase.

“The blame for all these brilliant decisions falls on state leaders and state leaders alone.”

Well, maybe not alone. Some heat should go to the Sacramento media — starting with those who blithely treat proposed tax hikes as if they were something that the public has no opinion about and unworthy of even cursory examination, such as to determine how much they would cost every employed California.