Some politicians use carefully worded phrases when claiming that their proposed policies or actions will not increase taxes. Some examples:
President Obama, in a February 24, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress: “[I]f your family earns less than $ 250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”
President Biden in 2022 State of the Union speech: “And under my plan, nobody earning less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional penny in new taxes. Nobody.”
President Biden tweeted, “When we pass the Inflation Reduction Act, not a single American in the middle class will pay higher taxes. It’s that simple.”
These examples illustrate the use of a qualified denial that is ambiguous and equivocal. Because a simple, straightforward, and unequivocal denial is readily available — for example “doing X will not raise taxes at all” or “if X is passed, no middle class American will pay higher taxes” — the use of an equivocal denial is suspicious. The examples listed above bring to mind a legal phrase used to describe a certain type of equivocal denial.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (11th Edition, 2019) the phrase “negative pregnant” is defined as “A denial implying its affirmative opposite by seeming to deny only a qualification of the allegation and not the allegation itself.” Some examples are useful to illustrate the practical meaning of the legal phrase.
Example 1: A man is accused of shooting another person with a pistol. The accused man denies that he shot another person with a pistol — even though he actually shot the other person with a revolver, a similar but technically different type of firearm.
Example 2: A man is accused of committing robbery on a Tuesday. The accused man denies that he committed the robbery on Tuesday — even though he actually committed the robbery on another day of the week.
Example 3: A man is accused of embezzling $1,000 from his employer. The accused man denies that he embezzled $1,000 from his employer — even though he actually did embezzle money from his employer in an amount other than $1,000.
The specific examples of politicians denying that their proposed actions or policies will raise taxes by a specific amount are very similar to “negative pregnant” denials. By denying their proposed actions or policies will raise taxes “by a single penny,” “by a single dime,” or “not [for] a single American in the middle class,” the statements literally do not rule out that taxes will be raised by some other amount of money or for some other number of people in the middle class.
Not all qualified denials are “negative pregnant” denials. However, any qualified denial should be considered carefully to consider whether the qualification is relevant and justified, or potentially misleading. When faced with a possible “negative pregnant” denial, thoughtful follow-up questions are needed to probe whether the qualified denial is justified and warranted, or not. Of course, the ability to ask such follow-up questions may not be readily available (for example during a politician’s speech), but such follow-up questions should be posed afterward as soon as possible by reporters, political opponents, or members of the public to seek clarification.
