The proposed 1 percent property tax cap, on the ballot in November, will win easily unless business groups loudly denounce it as an understandable but irresponsible overreaction to high taxes in this state. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce may be looking for a way out of rejecting the cap directly. There’s no way out. The chamber, more than most organizations, can either oppose the cap strongly or see it pass.

Maine tax burden is certainly too high, but think of it as a weight problem. It takes a long time to gain that extra 25 or 30 pounds, but trying to starve it away in a couple of weeks is not only dangerous, it doesn’t work – some weight comes off temporarily but your body responds by demanding lots of high-fat foods and soon the weight returns, and then some. Maine has a tax weight problem. It took years, starting in the early 1980s, to put on this extra weight and it will take many months, if not years, to lose it responsibly so it stays off.

To get a sense of how drastic the tax cap is, look at the kinds of cuts Maine cities would make if the measure passed in November. Augusta would lose $12 million. Bangor would lose $20.6 million in tax base, with an assumption that the cut would be divided between the city and school department, $12.9 million and $7.7 million respectively. On the city side alone that would require a cut of about 200 jobs. It’s easy to think of a few functions you’d like to see the city no longer do, but try to cut 200 jobs. You will quickly find yourself arriving at the police and fire departments, basic sanitation or maintenance.

The state chamber knows this. Local chambers have made sure it knows. In a recent letter, its president, Dana Connors, calls the question of whether to support the cap, support the status quo or back an alternative “remarkably difficult.” But, truly, it isn’t. No one supports the status quo, and if the tax cap made sense there would be no reason to look for an alternative.

Mr. Connors is smart enough, however, to know that the cap cannot be defeated by good intentions. He asks his members to look to September, when he says he’ll produce a solid plan that will reduce taxes responsibly. Fair enough – certainly, the Legislature couldn’t even achieve that. But whatever the plan the chamber devises, there is no escaping that the tax cap would be harmful, and there is no reason not to oppose it now while announcing that an alternative will be completed in September.

A final point on a chamber plan: It is unfair to say that legislators didn’t try to come up with an alternative to the tax cap. Actually, they came up with six or eight of them, but none had enough support to pass. When the chamber releases its plan, it should have a whole lot of Republicans and Democrats standing behind it saying this is the right way to go.

Without that kind of support, prepare for the drastic diet – and the disappointment that comes after.