Whoever wrote that story needs to do a LOT better job at lending perspective, and stop using Facebook and the Wayback Machine for their facts.
1) Yes, but only by 1-5 percent, depending on ethanol concentration.
2) Only if you consider the ethanol to be the sole economically valuable result of the production process. (Like looking at gasoline as the only product of crude oil refining)
3) See response #2
4) No, it doesn't. Ethanol is plenty viable in the market without a subsidy of any kind. Vehicle fuel isn't the only market for it by a long shot.
5) See response #1
6) WTF came up with that pile of bovine feces? Uses of corn, 2012/13, Nebraska Corn Board - Ethanol 36%, Feed 27%, Exports 18%, Other processing 12%, Carryout 5%, Exports 2%. And field corn used for ethanol production IS! NOT! THE! SAME! THING! as sweet corn (the kind that us human animals eat). Also the amount of corn we export (sell cheap, or often just give away) and the amount not produced on lands set aside under CRP or shifted to more profitable use exceeds, by some estimates, the amount of corn used in ethanol production. In short, the whole "It-Drives-Up-Food-Prices-OMG-We're-All-Gonna-Die!" argument is so much uneducated alarmist hooey.
7) If your vehicle is less than ten years old then it's already set up to tolerate oxygenated fuels, including those containing ethanol. That argument had some merit back in the early 2000s when it was first proposed, but it's no longer an issue for the VAST majority of motorists. The EPA CE debacle? Completely unrelated. Stupid and decidedly moronic, but unrelated.