Voters Divided Over Efficacy of Proposition

Voters interviewed yesterday in Cambridge were divided on Proposition 2 1/2.

"Anything that cuts the excise tax is worthwhile," Kathleen M. Conlon of Boston's North End said.

And most of the interviewed people who were unaware of the proposition said they would probably vote for a tax-cutting measure.

But Stephen M. Rudy of Cambridge says he opposes the referendum because he is "afraid of cuts in city services." Rudy, an employee of Boston City Hospital, says the hospital gets little money from the city and state now. "My opposition is more visceral than intellectual. I'm a strong believer in the welfare state," he added.

Max Romotsky of Waltham debated the proposition last night with Jack Pinzone of Watertown. Romotsky said he would vote for the proposition because it would "force the state to start lifting some of the burden off real estate." He added that Massachusetts needs a broader-based tax. Pinzone disagreed, saying Proposition 2 1/2 was not the best measure for reforming the Commonwealth's tax system.

Cutting taxes would not deal directly with Massachusetts' problems, Arch W. Horst of Cambridge said. "What bothers me more than taxes is inefficiency, waste, and bureaucratic obstructions." He added, "My gut feeling is not in favor of it," but said he can sympathize with people voting for the referendum.