One of the favorite statistics cited by the Citizens for Limited Taxation is that the Massachusetts legislature has faced nearly eight score tax reform measures since 1922, and has acted on none of them--not even one drafted by its own tax commission. The Commonwealth's property taxes are 70 per cent higher than the national average and still the legislature stands pat. It will take Proposition 2 1/2 to bluff the politicians on Beacon Hill into revising the tax structure.

Proposition 2 1/2--the very phrase launches local government officials into paroxysms of fear, prompting tirades on the death of city services and eliciting equally loud battle cries from supporters. Not since the airplanes started flying over houses near Logan Airport have so many people gotten angry. There's a rumor going around, in fact, that if all the money that Citizens for Limited Taxation and its opponents have spent pushing their causes were funnelled into local treasuries, they might be able to cut property taxes next year.

The measure would gradually force the state's 351 cities and towns to lower property taxes by 15 per cent a year, to 2 1/2 per cent of market value. Not every city would be affected, but the average cut would be 41 per cent. Proposition 2 1/2 thereafter would prohibit raising property taxes more than 2 1/2 per cent yearly. Auto excise taxes would be cut about 60 per cent. Fiscal autonomy for school committees and binding arbitration for police and firefighters' unions would be abolished.

A recent Boston Globe poll shows the measure's backers have the slight edge, particularly among people who don't know much about the issue. On paper the measure looks ideal--it would bring the state closer to the national average in property taxes--a move several high-technology industries say is necessary for them to induce new employees to settle in the state. Not only would the reductions save homeowners and businesses money, many backers hope the cuts would be so staggering as to force the legislature to develop a more progressive tax system.

Backers like the Citizens for Limited Taxation consider a proposal as bald-faced as Proposition 2 1/2 (Question 2 on the ballot) just about the only way to goad a legislature that has so long resisted change. If cities threaten a total loss of municipal services or bankruptcy, the state would have to step in, they argue. No matter how many city officials decry the plan, however, there is no guarantee the state will come up with a new, progressive tax system. The legislature would have to act on Proposition 2 1/2 before it could become law, and it could easily alter it or reject it outright.

A lot of city officials would prefer just that. Many communities are already finding it impossible to stay within the 4-per cent ceiling on local budget increases mandated by the state to reduce inflation; lowering that ceiling to 2 1/2 per cent and eliminating exemptions would decimate city services. Moreover, the tax cut would be weighted against renters. Older, poorer cities--which tend to have the highest property taxes--would suffer the most.

Under Proposition 2 1/2, city officials predict municipal services would resemble Hamburg's in 1945. City Manager James L. Sullivan estimates that Cambridge's property tax would be cut 60 per cent over six years and the city would lose one third of its annual budget. In the first year, Cambridge would have to lay off a third of its police force and firefighters, more than a third of its teachers and public works employees, close health centers, branch libraries and community schools and stop underwriting public celebrations. When Proposition 2 1/2 is fully implemented, "there will not be sufficient revenue to retain in the service of this city one employee; not a policeman, not a fireman, not a public works laborer," Sullivan predicts.

While other cities would probably not have to eviscerate their budgets, they would still face arterial cuts. One way to prevent municipal harakiri would be charging for services or transferring the services covered by property taxes to other assessments (Concord is considering increasing its water fees by $100,000)--thereby defeating the purpose of the proposition.

Proponents of the measure say officials are using "scare tactics"; they argue that reductions won't be that severe. The inflation rate will increase property values sufficiently to offset the tax cut, even though the cost of providing services is rising. And they argue that many officials are presenting worst-case examples, which the legislature would prevent. And if all else fails and a city gets strapped, it has two ways to override Proposition 2 1/2 getting two-thirds approval in a local referendum during the biennial general election or in elections called by the legislature in the November of an intervening year.

If the measure passes, it will indicate either that Massachusetts voters are fed up with a regressive tax structure or fed up with taxes in general--more likely the latter. Had Boston Mayor Kevin White vociferously opposed the measure (he has said almost nothing), he could have been forced into a double take, a la Jerry Brown.

That many communities have come out in favor of the proposition is a signal of its appeal. But even its backers point to regressive and potentially dangerous flaws. The regressive-tax haters who designed Proposition 2 1/2 wanted to warn the legislature. But to many municipal officials, its passage represents a death sentence.

Question 1

It took courage for a lone state representative to buck 262 compatriots by voting against Question 1 on tomorrow's ballot--an issue as inherently unquestionable to Americans as motherhood and apple pie--equal rights for the handicapped. The proposed amendment would add to the state constitution an article prohibiting discrimination against handicapped people. The only objection raised so far is that the vague wording of the amendment could possibly be interpreted to mean that Massachusetts will have to install ramps and elevators in old buildings throughout the state.

Question 3

It seems incongruous that a group whose members' wages are paid by taxes would sponsor a tax-cutting measure. In fact, it sounds downright fishy. But that's what Question 3 on tomorrow's ballot--sponsored by the Massachusetts Teachers Association--would technically do: limit state and local tax increases to the rate of annual per capita growth in income. It would also shift the state's share of the tab for local education from 30 to 50 per cent.