For Some, Seven Is A Magic Number In Deficit Battle

A balanced budget in seven years.

The phrase has taken on a mystical quality on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., says his “intuition” told him it was the right number of years for balancing the federal books. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., a Gingrich devotee, said the number “7” derives from the Bible and imparts good luck and an aura of sanctity to the task of attaining fiscal integrity.

Still others suggest that it stems from a constitutional concept, in which seven years is the usual span of time to ratify amendments to the Constitution.

Then there are those who don’t believe in magic. They say the seven years was a hardheaded political judgment made by Republican leaders who felt they could not possibly justify the pain and suffering of balancing the budget in a shorter period.

President Clinton is another who perceives no magical quality to seven years or any other explicit time span. At various times over the last few years, he has suggested several alternatives, ranging from five to 10 years.

Whatever one thinks, seven years is now the official target for bringing the federal budget into balance.

“There’s no economic justification for it,” said Stanley E. Collender, director of federal budget policy for Price-Waterhouse. “No economic principle says that seven years is better than any other period of time.”

For Stearns, it is a matter of religious significance.

“The number ‘7’ originated from a concept in the Bible, in which ‘7’ is a sacred number,” he said. “Such as seven ways to make money, seven ways to get organized. Throughout thousands of years of history, ‘7’ has been an almost magical number. It’s a number that’s not too long and not too short.”

Besides, he added, it is “politically doable.”

Asked about seven years on Sunday, Gingrich explained it this way: “If you study history, all major decisions, ultimately, are a summary judgment of a collection of data. They’re not scientific, they’re intuitive. It’s an art form; it’s not engineering.”

Even as congressional advocates of the seven-year plan vigorously defend its propriety, outsiders observe that attaining the goal probably will require a little divine intervention, as Stearns might hope.

“There’s no way, other than by sheer luck, that anybody could expect to actually reach a balanced budget that far in the future,” Collender said.

So while it is comforting for some to aim for the goal, most folks who deal with real-world economics won’t lay any money on the outcome.