The S.C. Senate Republican caucus agreed earlier this month to revise the long-standing Senate rules that critics regard as counterproductive to visionary legislating: the written rule empowering a senator to filibuster as long as he or she pleases, and the unwritten rule empowering senators to singlehandedly veto bills they don't like by objecting to them.

(A single senator effects such a veto by objecting to a bill pending a hearing before the full Senate, then making certain he's not in the Senate chamber when the bill comes up.)

The strong possibility that the Senate in January will follow through on the GOP caucus' recommendations will delight Gov. Mark Sanford and reform-minded members of the S.C. House. The death of many a well-founded reform initiative in the Senate has driven the governor and House leaders to distraction, so much so with Sanford that he made revision of Senate rules one of his five main planks for the remainder of his term.

Both changes, two of dozens the GOP caucus approved, probably are good ideas. But the ills that could come with diminishing the powers of small Senate minorities and of individual senators are worrisome.

Most often, such members resort to filibusters or single-senator vetos to obstruct legislation favored by large majorities of legislators from both houses. It's frustrating when a senator in thrall to a special interest threatened by a proposed reform - for instance, liquor wholesalers wanting to preserve their minibottle privileges - keeps that reform from taking effect.

But not all bills favored by large legislative majorities would make for good public policy. In such cases, the blocking power of one senator has proved to be a blessing.

Take, for instance, this year's bill to grant S.C. golf courses a huge tax break by taxing their land on its income-earning potential instead of its market value. In Horry County alone, enactment of the bill would have shifted more than $7 million in property taxes away from golf courses and onto the tax bills of all other taxable property owners.

The bill, strongly endorsed by every member of the county delegation except Rep. Thad Viers, R-Socastee, seemed headed to certain passage until one legislator, Sen. Clementa Pinckney, D-Ridgeland, let it be known that he would object to the bill, tying it up in the Senate.

The bill lost steam, and many Horry County legislators now admit that it was not the most thoughtful way to help beleaguered golf courses remain in business. Absent Pinckney's "veto threat," it well might have passed.

None of this is to suggest that the proposed Senate rules changes - placing a strict time limit on single-senator vetoes and easing the requirements for ending filibusters - will unleash a torrent of bad legislation. The full Senate should pass the rules changes, to give the better reform ideas now in circulation - Sanford's government restructuring proposals, for instance - a chance to become law. We'll take it on faith that disempowering Senate "gadflies" such as Pinckney will not help bad ideas develop into bad laws.