The raging battle about the budget has focused even more attention on how taxes are spent, and that’s good. Although we question the strong-arm approach, we have to give the tea party activists credit for making Congress confront the issue.

Maybe we’ll start cutting across the board in the next few years. Maybe we’ll refine the massive entitlement programs. But it’s important to note, here in farm country, that spending on agriculture seems almost certain to be on the losing side.

It was remarkable to see Sen. Chuck Grassley back away from ethanol subsidies, and that’s not the only field where the topsoil is shifting. The Center for Rural Affairs noted that the House of Representatives passed an ag appropriations bill in June that “slashes and burns conservation by $1 billion. This is on top of the $500 million already cut from these programs in the continuing resolution passed earlier this year.”

As in other industries, the pain might not be spread evenly. The House rejected a move to limit commodity program payments to smaller producers.

It’s a relatively easy time to push farmers away from the budget table, because the sector is doing well. As The Wall Street Journal reported this week, sky-high grain prices mean that farmers aren’t receiving counter-cyclical support payments. Other subsidies continue, but “high prices are undermining political support for those programs,” the Journal reported.

We don’t need to ladle funds out to any business owners who are prospering, including farmers, but it would be a mistake to shred the safety net.

Just as American society depends on a reasonable level of financial security for the elderly and those with health problems, it depends on a stable agricultural framework.

It’s a prime moment to eliminate wasteful spending, including in ag programs. But being prepared for trouble is always in style.