Farmers exploit misunderstandings to the hilt. After massive PR about flood losses and disaster relief, one summer I was in the Des Moines airport and eavesdropping on the conversations of farmers leaving on vacations paid for by the guv. They were discusssing what prices they got for their stored grain. It sounded a lot like a wine conversation with years and moisture percentages cited. The guv doesn't know what it is doing. My bro married into an Iowa farm family. They declared and got paid for crop losses, but the corn actually went to Tyson's in Arkansas.
Corn price has been too low since the British passed the first corn laws in 1800 to subsidize English farmers threatened by surpluses from colonies. Higher prices will enable farmers to modernize their operations to meet demand. And please explain why a wild rainforest is better than a well managed plantation in Brazil or Indonesia. Both photosynthesize.
Corn and farmer subsidies are an awful thing, I agree. It's certainly a related issue to the ethanol discussion, but on its own merits I don't think grain-based ethanol is a good plan.