Republicans call President Obama's tax proposal 'non-starter': What do they mean?

Congressional Republicans didn’t wait until President Obama’s State of the Union speech to declare that his new tax proposal wasn’t going anywhere, with Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz calling it a 'non-starter.'

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R) of Utah, speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington in September.

“Non-starter.” A term from the horse-racing world, it refers to an idea critics say is so hopelessly flawed that it isn’t worth tackling.

Congressional Republicans didn’t wait until President Obama’s State of the Union speech to declare that his new tax proposal wasn’t going anywhere. Days before Obama aides leaked word that he would push expanded credits for Americans of all ages, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz wasn’t impressed, calling the proposal a “non-starter.”

Meanwhile, at last week’s GOP retreat, another House Republican, California’s Jeff Denham, sought to quash any speculation that he was secretly working on a comprehensive immigration bill. Representative Denham reportedly told fellow Republicans that such an idea – which Democrats embrace, but many conservatives resist – is “a non-starter.”

“Non-starter” has its lineage across the Atlantic Ocean, according to Safire’s Political Dictionary. “In British horse-racing jargon,” it says, “a horse entered into a race but withdrawn before the start is called a non-starter; the American term is ‘scratch.’ From horse racing, the British term was extended into business usage.” It has long been employed in diplomatic circles, Safire added, becoming especially popular among US Foreign Service officers in the 1970s.

The word has been used on a bipartisan basis. The Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol site, which searches the Congressional Record database for the popularity of terms, says that over the past two decades, Democrats have invoked it on the House and Senate floors more often than Republicans.

It can encompass an entire category of behavior. “Since taking the House in 2011, Republicans have focused almost exclusively on passing bills that have the support of only Republicans and have little chance of becoming law,” Century Foundation Fellow Michael A. Cohen wrote last October in the Boston Globe. “Outreach to Democrats or President Obama has been a non-starter.”

Non-starters can begin at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. President George W. Bush’s final two years in office facing an opposition Democratic Congress – the inverse of President Obama’s current predicament – included rhetorical non-starters on a near-daily basis.

In May 2007, Democrats in the House and Senate pushed legislation that would have withdrawn US combat troops from Iraq by August 2008, or sooner. The Bush White House didn’t see it that way. "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe to say it's a non-starter for the president," said White House Counselor Dan Bartlett.

Do non-starters ever actually start? In arguing for a right-to-work law, West Virginia’s Charleston Daily Mail observed in a 2012 editorial that Michigan recently had become the 24th state to enact legislation seeking to guarantee that workers cannot be compelled to join or not join a labor union. “A proposal once considered a non-starter is now law in almost half of the 49 states that West Virginia competes with to win investment, economic growth, jobs, young people, income gains and lower poverty levels,” it said.  

Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark write their "Speaking Politics" blog exclusively for Decoder Voices.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Republicans call President Obama's tax proposal 'non-starter': What do they mean?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today