But we use corn, so it looks more and more like this is a give-away program to Big Ag than anything else.
This article is legitimate. The federal (DC) ethanol mandate IS about subsidizing the corn industry.
Ethanol can be produced from many other crops more efficiently than from corn. This is beside the fact, which the article does not go in to, that ethanol-added fuel has problems in itself, from water accumulation to corrosion to less energy per unit volume.
However do NOT use the argument of burning food for fuel, that is irrelevant and like aspects of the birth-certificate thing, is subject to logical ridicule (as in Americans don't consume enough calories?).
It IS about subsidizing the corn industry, at immense expense, in both energy and engine maintenance terms, to the taxpayer. A blatant case of (corrupt) lobbying power at the federal congressional level.
Your Senator (or President) is NOT concerned about you; he or she is concerned about perpetrating their privileged career. That is why the Federal Government needs to be dismantled to at most sixty percent of its current revenue and program authority.
Thus the Tea Party.
The Suntrade Institute
The mandate only specifies the volume of ethanol to be included in the fuel supply; it does not mention what source is to be used.
The subsidy is paid as ethanol is blended with gasoline. It is paid regardless of the source of ethanol, included imported sources. (note, we are now an exporter of ethanol since we produce more than we use)