I have several corn producing family members that would be happy to debate this with you. (My family has been farming for over 125 years.)
They plant more hybrids that go into ethanol production than any feed or seed hybrid because they receive more money for it...in fact, more than 3-4 times as much money for it than pre-Renewable Fuel Standard mandate.
Also, your incorrect about ethanol producers not getting subsidies. Tax credits are most definitely subsidies and every new ethanol plant that goes up in Iowa has a healthy tax credit to go along with it.
Granted, the $6 billion/year subsidies that have been in place since 1979 were finally killed but you forget all about the Renewable Fuel Standard which which has a slowly increasing mandate which *requires* a certain percentage of corn be produced for ethanol production (37% for 2011-2012, higher for 2013-2014).
In fact, as the Congressional Budget Office wrote back in 2010(Source
"In the future, the scheduled increase in mandated volumes would require biofuels to be produced in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included
." [Italics mine.]
In other words, the mandates have grown so large that the tax credits barely made a difference anymore. Demand for ethanol is driven by the mandates, not by the tax credit. When you take away the tax credit, nothing happens: Demand stays high because the law says so, corn prices go up accordingly, and corn farmers stay rich. The subsidies were a nice little fillip on top of that, but at this point it's basically chump change.
So there's your facts, Stevie. I won't get into the *FACT* that ethanol makes mileage suffer. Because several thousand users at www.fuelly.com
have proven just that and have the *FACTS* to back it up.
You are wrong, plain and simple. Best to just accept your textual beating like a man and move on.