I have always loved Christmas. But as I grew older, as much as I loved it, I think I lost much of the spirit. Now that I have a four-year-old son—who is wrestling with the stress of being good under the eye of the “Elf on the Shelf,” eying presents under the tree, and baking cookies with his mom—I find myself recovering much of what I had lost. This is wonderful, but, as a father, I also find myself reaching deeper into the meaning of the holiday.

The idea of sacrifice is at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity, and the notion of a father sacrificing his son is fundamental. Christmas itself, where the Christ child is born into the world, is the start of just that sacrifice. I literally cannot fathom making that kind of sacrifice—of giving up my son. At the same time, I understand just how much I would sacrifice for him.

After writing about how growth could slow going forward, based on my own analysis and supported by several even more pessimistic analysts, notably Jeremy Grantham and Professor Robert Gordon of Northwestern, I have been spending some time thinking about how the argument is wrong.

As I wind down into the Christmas week, I wanted to reflect on some of the things I’m grateful for.

Family Day

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Accounting is commonly perceived as cut and dried. I once had dinner with an interior decorator, who, upon discovering I was in finance, said with some pity, “Well, you can still be creative, right?” My answer, of course, was that if we’re too creative, we go to jail. That pretty much ended the discussion (and got me in trouble on the way home).

My quip aside, accounting involves significant questions of judgment and adjustment. Take Enron, for example. The case was largely a matter of how the accountants reflected the business reality through the legal structure and financial statements. Although it was ultimately concluded that the statements didn’t reflect reality, both the internal financial managers and auditors agreed, at least initially, that the methods used were acceptable.

The last time that the Federal Reserve (Fed) was widely expected to start reducing, or “tapering,” its bond purchase program, earlier this fall, interest rates increased and the market tanked. Widely referred to as the “taper tantrum”—a term I wish that I had invented—the drop was quickly reversed when Fed officials came out and reassured the market that, in fact, they had no intentions of pulling back, ever. Really.

That was then. Since that time, the economy has shown improved growth, interest rates have ratcheted back down, and the stock market has recovered and powered up to new highs. With the recent good economic news—much higher levels of GDP growth than expected, higher employment figures and lower unemployment, and very positive business surveys, among other highlights—the Fed is at a point where a taper pretty much has to start soon. Maybe not this week, but soon. The budget deal in Washington also makes a taper more likely because the last reason for the Fed to continue its stimulus was worry about fiscal policy disruption.

I got some interesting feedback the other day from a Commonwealth advisor who was commenting on a piece I’d written about the economic recovery. His point of view is fairly common and can be summarized as follows: “The fact is that the sheer size of government has doubled over the past 10 years.” He made other points, but they hinged on government growth being out of control. A fair point, if true, but before we get too far into it, I thought it would be useful to see how much government actually has grown.

Let’s look at employment first. We can see from the following chart that total government employment is up by 322,000, or 1.5 percent. Over the same time period, the U.S. population—a reasonable comparative metric—is up by 8.2 percent, so government employment has grown much less than population.

One of the things I do every day is look back at the previous day and think about what I could have done better. Not so much how I failed (although that occasionally comes up) but whether I did the best I could, and what I could do better.

I’ve been saying for some time that wage growth will be faster next year than this year, and, per the chart below, we can see that it is, in fact, accelerating. It certainly isn’t where we would like it to be, but the trend is in the right direction. Note also that this is in real dollars, reflecting actual gains in purchasing power and not inflation.

I want to be excited about the new federal budget deal, I really do. I get it: it’s big news that we actually have an agreement—for two years even! We can look forward to an absence of catfights, reduced uncertainty, and less of all the good things that go with minimally responsible government.

And yet, I can’t help but feel depressed that such a minimal agreement warrants front-page news in both major national papers. What does this say about our governance? The other thing that worries me is the extensive caveats in those stories—how the deal may well not pass since the conservative Republican elements in the House are dead set against lifting the sequester spending cuts, while many of the more left-leaning Democrats are dead set against the spending limitations and letting extended unemployment benefits expire.