“I gave ‘em a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I’d have done the same thing.”

— Richard M. Nixon

When you make a mistake in either war or politics, you pay a price. In war, the price very well may be your life, while in politics, it may be a newspaper column.

In submitting my piece for February 7, I erred in the tax rate on diet soft drinks. I should have submitted 15 per cent duty rate. However, it was inadvertently left blank.

For that, I can say that Michael Dunkley, in his Letter to the Editor of February 11, was totally correct in the following statement:

“Wrong! Diet is taxed at 15 per cent.”

So, yes, OK, I will take the heat for that. As Richard Nixon stated: “I gave ‘em a sword. And they stuck it in.”

But that is as far as it goes, as he, himself, has a lot to answer for in his subsequent statements.

“Then he writes: So would it be possible for Michael Dunkley to let us know why the diet soft drinks that he imports cost almost the same as regular soft drinks?

“Wrong again! They do not; there is a large difference in the price of a case of diet compared with regular that we sell.”

OK, let us do some maths.

If one were to call Dunkley’s Dairy, then ask for the respective prices of regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi, they would be told the following information:

Regular Pepsi: $16.68 per case.

Diet Pepsi: $14.00 per case.

Those prices would equate to a $2.68 difference in cost. Does that $2.68 equate to a “large difference” in prices between regular and diet soft drinks?

Let us do some further maths.

With each case comprising 24 cans, we can divide the price per case by the number of cans per case.

So, regular Pepsi: $16.68 divided by 24 equals 68 cents per can. Likewise, Diet Pepsi: $14.00 divided by 24 equals to 58 cents per can.

So the difference in price between regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi, directly from Dunkley’s Dairy, is a grand total of ten cents. Yep, one dime’s difference,

So, I ask you, are these prices a “large difference” or “almost the same”?

To the bigger picture, Mr Dunkley was unable to deny that the One Bermuda Alliance has never, in its near nine years of existence, on any consistent and meaningful basis advocated in any way for the lowering of the costs of living for Bermudians.

Has it lobbied for the lowering of health insurance rates?

Has it lobbied for the lowering of electricity rates?

Last Friday, during the motion to adjourn, the OBA was challenged to state anything at all that it has done to address the cost of living.

Patricia Gordon-Pamplin rose to her feet and mentioned supermarkets offering 10 per cent discounts on Wednesdays for less than two years. What she deliberately avoided admitting was that the OBA gave those same supermarkets that requested it licences to sell liquor on Sundays.

This served only to boost the coffers of those supermarket chains that opened on Sundays, while cutting out sales of several smaller bars. Yes, the big guys won again.

So, ultimately, ask yourselves this question: why is it that the OBA has never spoken up to actively engage stakeholders to lower the costs of living for Bermudians?

It boasts, rightfully, about its ties to the business community, yet somehow has never leveraged those intimate connections for the benefit of Bermudians.

In fact, during its tenure it did the following:

• Raised the import duty on Belco fuel not once, but twice, thus causing a rise in electricity prices

• Raised payroll taxes on the retail industry from 0 per cent in 2012 to 10 per cent, thus raising the prices on most consumer items

• Instituted a service tax on insurance companies, causing all insurance premiums to rise

• Gave away $13 million in net income to Aecon for the new air terminal

• Committed taxpayers to nearly $180 million for a private project at Morgan’s Point

It would love for you to forget these things, yet it is clear to see that the OBA, during its tenure, helped to raise the overall cost of living for Bermudians.

Meanwhile, the present government is attempting to bring about reform to healthcare costs and eliminating duty on staple items such as apples, oranges, fresh potatoes, rice, milk, tins of cream and shredded wheat.

So, while I admit to the typographical error in my column of February 7, Michael Dunkley as Premier has a long list of conscious decisions and actions that he and his government imposed on the people of Bermuda, thus raising the cost of living for all Bermuda residents.

• Christopher Famous is the MP for Devonshire East (Constituency 11). Contact him at WhatsApp on 599-0901 or e-mail at cfamous@plp.bm