If there is such a thing, much of the fiscal policy world's glitterari were in full display on Wednesday night when the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget hosted its annual dinner in Washington, D.C. There were current and former OMB, CBO, and GAO directors; the economic advisors to (in alphabetical order) presidential candidates Clinton, McCain, and Obama; current and former House and Senate Budget Committee chairmen; lots of other former and sitting members of Congress; a number of chief economists from federal budget and economic agencies; and congressional staffers galore.

Andrew, Pete, Troy, and myself --the four people responsible for Capital Gains and Games -- were there as well. (This was the first time the four of us have ever been in the same room at the same time so the moment obviously needs to be recorded for posterity.)

Maya MacGuineas, the president of the CRFB, and her team are to be congratulated for once again throwing a heck of a party.

Four things about the dinner struck me as important.

First, it reminded me of something that, I suspect like most people, I have to be continually reminded about: the budget and fiscal policy are political problems and can only be dealt with through political agreements. There was more analytical firepower gathered at this dinner than may have ever been the case in U.S. history. Yet the more we talked, the more I realized that the general agreement that seemed to exist about U.S. fiscal policy being "unsustainable" (the apparent word of choice for the evening) was also accompanied by an unstated understanding that there was absolutely no agreement among the numbers crunchers about how best to deal with it.

This is important if you're trying to determine if, when, and how the budget will be tackled by Washington. The answer clearly is...slowly. There is and will be no silver bullet or magic elixir and, unless something like another tech boom develops, no sudden huge improvement will occur.

As is typically the case, the improved outlook will be incremental. So government borrowing needs will continue to be high and Washington's ability to address new less-than-crisis challenges will be limited.

Second, I kept wondering why so many people at the dinner were talking about keeping everything at or below historical averages of GDP. That's a comparison that a PR person should love but which is really meaningless. The fact that federal spending and revenues may be above the average of the past 40 years ignores the fact that what people are expecting or need today from the federal government may be greater than what was expected from it before.

Third, I got tired of hearing at the dinner that the budget problem was really a question of overspending from analysts who should know much better. "Spending" is the economic manifestation of what people are demanding the federal government do for them. Whether it is a public protection effort like the Centers for Disease Control and Pentagon, or support for a particular industry or group of people, the decision that's made is to do something. Spending follows from that decision.

That means that the budget problem is not only about spending; it's just as much about not paying for what it is we decide to do. That makes it as much a revenue as a spending issue.

Fourth, after several hours of hearing fiscal conservatives and liberals using the phrase "the American people want..." and coming up with radically different answers, I've concluded that it's time to have an outright ban on the phrase unless it is accompanied by a poll or other research that proves that the speaker has some reason to think that she or she actually knows what "the people" want.

The obvious truth is that, except is the rarest of circumstances --and the budget definitely is not one of them -- the American people think lots of things and seldom agree about much. To say that we are unified about anything having to do with federal spending and taxes is ridiculous and belied by history.

So the next time anyone involved with the fiscal policy debate makes an unsubstantiated statement about the American people, I propose that their traxes be raised, grants cuts, or subsidies be reduced.

Note to Maya: Next year, how about a red carpet and coverage on E! as we walk into the building?