The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction’s first hearing, on the drivers of the federal deficit and debt, ostensibly achieved little in the way of changing minds or paving a way for consensus. The hearing, which lasted for more than two hours on Tuesday, was filled with tedious questions about minor details, mild posturing, and calls for the other side to negotiate in good faith.

Testimony by Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf brought few surprises, as he consistently refused to answer weighted questions. Indeed, much of what Elmendorf said could be found in previous testimonies and CBO’s August Outlook.

But Elmendorf was there to testify and he made clear he was appearing as an impartial witness to provide information rather than advice.

“I’d rather not parse the word ‘balance,’ given its role in your current discussions,” Elmendorf told co-chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Members, though, spoke of “balance” in different ways.

“I think it’s important that we look at the revenue side of the equation right now,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., echoing calls he and other Democrats made throughout the summer’s debt debate. “I think it is time for this committee to get real about, yes, there are spending issues ... but there are also revenue issues.”

Republicans—in their questions about entitlement spending and the expected growth of revenues as a percent of gross domestic product regardless of whether the Bush tax cuts are extended—also sounded familiar themes.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., took issue with Elmendorf’s testimony about the advantages of delaying austerity measures in the middle of economic turmoil.

“Given that [the debt] is probably already weighing on economic growth and given that continuing down this road will lead to full-blown disaster, that suggests to me that it’s very dangerous to delay making meaningful reform,” Toomey said.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., meanwhile, focused his questions on the roughly $100 billion in “improper payments” the government spends each year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“Rather than make a speech,” Kyl said—taking a dig at Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., who spoke at length about the role of defense spending in creating the deficit—“I’d rather focus on areas where we might find agreement.”

He added that improper payments comprise “an area we need to address, and since it doesn’t involve cuts in benefits,” committee members probably could find common ground.

Elmendorf responded that improper payments are not the same as fraud; some of them would have gone out anyway but are classified as “improper” because of technical errors.

“There is no evidence that suggests that this sort of effort can represent a large share of the $1.2 trillion,” Elmendorf said of weeding out improper spending.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, a panel co-chair, asked Elmendorf whether a “comprehensive” approach, including revenue and entitlement reform, would be preferable to concentrating on discretionary savings.

“As a matter of arithmetic, there are a lot of different paths to reducing the deficit, and it is not CBO’s role to make recommendations among those alternative paths,” Elmendorf said. He added, though, that the more big pieces of the puzzle committee members remove, “the greater the changes will need to be in the remaining pieces.”

At one point, the CBO director appeared exasperated by the repetitive questions about the debt’s growth and the best approach to solve it.

“I understand the purpose of talking about the history of the debt and how we got here,” Elmendorf told the 12-member panel tasked with finding $1.2 trillion by Thanksgiving. “But I think the fundamental question for you is where you want the country to go.”

Kyl said the committee had not scheduled policy meetings beyond Tuesday’s hearing as of Monday.

“We have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time, and it’s tedious work,” Kyl said. “It will take us a lot of time to complete. And I have expressed a little bit of frustration that we need to get moving and that the job will be harder than some people realize.”

Hopeful that substantive talks commence quickly, Kyl declined to discuss chances the panel will fail to meet its goal. “Everyone I think on the commission is committed to making sure we succeed,” he said.

The committee must present its final package of recommendations by Nov. 23. Kyl and several aides have said that means the group will need to come to an agreement on their plan by late October.