That said, I want to give Ferguson's rebuttal far more attention than it deserves. This isa tedious exercise, so feel free to skip to the next section. Below are a summary of mycritiques in italics, his responses in bold, and then my reply to those. Whew! Let's go.1. I criticized Ferguson for saying that stocks are up since January 2009, but privatesector employment is down since January 2008. I pointed out that private sector payrolls are up 427,000 since Obama took office in January 2009.NF: Both these statements are true. I picked the high point of January 2008 because itseems to me reasonable to ask how much of the ground lost in the crisis have weactually made up under Obama. The answer is not much. You may not like that, but it'sa fact.Ferguson's fact is deliberately misleading. A better way to make the argument he sayshe wants to make would be something like, "Private sector payrolls have added 427,000 jobs since Obama took office, but we are nowhere near out of our deep hole -- despitethis growth, private sector payrolls are still 4.18 million jobs below their January 2008peak."2. I couldn't find Ferguson's source or replicate his result for real median householdincomes.NF: Well, either Newsweek starts publishing footnotes or Matthew O'Brien reads a littlemore widely than just official statistics, which generally lag months behind. The monthlydata for Median Household Income Index (HII) is produced by Sentier A footnote isn't necessary. A link would suffice. The Sentier numbers are a decent proxyfor the official Census numbers, but there are some years where they move in oppositedirections. I annualized and normalized the Sentier and Census figures and found anaverage 2.5 percent difference between their levels from 2001-2010. (I indexed both to2000, since that's how the Sentier data are presented, and stopped in 2010 becausethat's the last year for which the Census has numbers). In other words, the Sentier figures are far from authoritative, and could use some context.