Agriculture goes beyond the “too big to fail” category; it’s too important to fail.

And when banks and other industries were getting bailed out by the federal government during the recession, farmers were among the many small business people who said: “What about us?”

However, they know full well that we have been bailing out agriculture for decades. Not in one dramatic, news-making handout, but in a steady flow of price support arrangements and direct payments. Because agriculture is so vital, we have tried to make the way smooth.

Now it’s time once again for Congress to write a new farm bill, and the discussions are taking place in the midst of semi-serious efforts to cut government spending. The ag industry can expect changes.

Last fall, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley requested a hard cap on farm payments at $250,000 per married couple. He made a nod to the public relations aspect of this issue, saying that his proposal “closes loopholes that have reduced urban support for the farm bill.”

The Center for Rural Affairs, located in Nebraska, has said: “Congress should place a hard limit of $40,000 on direct payments to the largest farms in tough years, and further ratchet down that limit to $13,000 in the best years,” and “we support a one-third across-the-board cut in direct payments.”

NPR quoted a Central Iowa farmer, Roger Zylstra: “At this point in time, direct payments are pretty much irrelevant to production agriculture. We’re willing to give it up, but the thing we really need is that safety net.”

That sounds about right. If the payments aren’t needed, let’s cut them from the budget. But let’s make sure to keep the ag industry stable.

Farmers are independent business owners, and that status involves a fair amount of risk in pursuit of reward. Iowa’s farmers will do just fine with less government support.