There's a challenge for journalists these days, and I'm not talking about "fake news." I'm talking about the continuous pot-stirring for anything that's going on, even when there's no end result. I use the phrase "generating more heat than light" to describe what I mean.

For President Donald Trump's initial budget there was plenty of heat generated, but did coverage really generate light? No presidential budget has been accepted as is in 40 years, so why would we treat the first Trump budget as if Moses brought it down from the mountain, carved in stone and immutable?

We've been watching this new president for a few months, and there's a growing feeling that he's doing what he said he would when he ran — make change. But part of that is to propose a position, then negotiate to a final position.

That budget that eliminates the undersecretary of rural development or lumps spending in other categories in ag is a starting point. It's a way to clear the air — and perhaps wipe clean old ideas to see what's really possible for better, more directed spending in the future.

We can argue that dumping another $10 billion for Defense without a lot of direction may not be the best move. But again, Trump promised to boost spending in this category and delivered it in that first proposal. If Congress makes changes, he will still have to be happy with the final bill or will veto it, and let's be clear: This president may find upholding vetoes easy, since the override would involve both parties turning against an idea.

Conversation-starter
This new budget does take on crop insurance and supports and other spending programs. It opens a new dialogue — and instead of crying foul, perhaps the budget negotiators should start looking at the proposal and coming up with new ideas of their own. Should there be means testing? Should there be limits on how much you can earn to get a subsidy for that insurance? No answers to those questions here, but these are questions that are being asked.

Last month I talked about that "food bill" idea — and you know where I stand. But I also think that every time a new budget comes out, it's an opportunity to look at spending and whether the programs supported make sense — no matter what the program may be.

And this budget shows some key priorities for consideration of a new farm bill, too. Just how should farm production be supported in this country? What could be better? What can change?

Perhaps in the negotiation and development of a new farm bill, this budget conversation will be part of the mix. We have programs that have evolved to make sure the government supports where it can and doesn't get dinged later.

Crop insurance was beefed up so farmers didn't have to come back for disaster aid from a drought or flooding. We need to tell that story and explain how crop insurance can work to keep farmers in business when nature sends a weather surprise.

Rural development is important because a strong rural economy with the right technology and support — including high-speed internet access — does have value. And it takes federal support to help private partners get the job done.

There are tough choices to make ahead; treating a first-draft budget as a bible is a mistake. Having a well-thought-out discussion of priorities is really what's needed. And perhaps that's what Trump had in mind.